Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Date: 2015-08-04 00:19:17
Message-ID: 55C00505.3060308@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-08-03 PM 09:24, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> OK, sure. But let's make sure postgres_fdw gets a server-level option
>> to control this.
>>
>>
> For postgres_fdw it's a boolean server-level option 'twophase_compliant'
> (suggestions for name welcome).
>

How about just 'twophase'?

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2015-08-04 00:56:27 Re: max_worker_processes on the standby
Previous Message Fabrízio de Royes Mello 2015-08-04 00:12:48 Re: Doubt about AccessExclusiveLock in ALTER TABLE .. SET ( .. );