Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, 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: 2015-08-05 00:50:47
Message-ID: 55C15DE7.2090108@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2015-08-05 AM 06:11, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Amit Langote
> <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
>> On 2015-08-03 PM 09:24, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>>> For postgres_fdw it's a boolean server-level option 'twophase_compliant'
>>> (suggestions for name welcome).
>>>
>>
>> How about just 'twophase'?
>
> How about two_phase_commit?
>

Much cleaner, +1

Thanks,
Amit

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2015-08-05 00:51:30 Re: tablecmds.c and lock hierarchy
Previous Message Josh Berkus 2015-08-05 00:46:41 Re: RFC: replace pg_stat_activity.waiting with something more descriptive