From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pg_prepared_xact_status |
Date: | 2017-09-29 20:33:04 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZAZhBa9fQ7bN58vp9c+0TYxXSHoO53T+LJ1QARX9WfoA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 4:22 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> This sounds kind-of like 1/4 of a distributed transaction resolver, without
> a way to make it reliable enough to build the other 3/4.
>
> To make this practical I think you'd need a way to retain historic GIDs +
> their outcomes, and a way to prune that information only once an application
> knows all interested participants consider the transaction finalized.
>
> I'd be all for a global xid status function if there were a good way to
> manage resource retention. But it's fuzzy enough for txid_status, which
> isn't really making any firm promises, just improving on the prior state of
> "no f'ing idea what happened to that tx, sorry". 2PC consumers will want
> absolute guarantees, not "dunno, sorry".
Very well said, and I agree.
I think the approach this patch takes is a non-starter for exactly the
reasons you have stated.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-29 20:44:42 | Re: Shaky coding for vacuuming partitioned relations |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-09-29 20:26:42 | pgsql: Fix inadequate locking during get_rel_oids(). |