| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |
| Date: | 2017-10-28 03:20:00 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaPsc7wQGp6h9aTiN6kAsTawHYsAiaBftJ6Vd7_vYYEUg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Why do we want the the backend to linger behind, once it has added its
>> foreign transaction entries in the shared memory and informed resolver
>> about it? The foreign connections may take their own time and even
>> after that there is no guarantee that the foreign transactions will be
>> resolved in case the foreign server is not available. So, why to make
>> the backend wait?
>
> Because I don't want to break the current user semantics. that is,
> currently it's guaranteed that the subsequent reads can see the
> committed result of previous writes even if the previous transactions
> were distributed transactions.
Right, this is very important, and having the backend wait for the
resolver(s) is, I think, the right way to implement it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2017-10-28 08:03:10 | unsafe tuple releasing in get_default_partition_oid |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2017-10-28 01:16:51 | Re: WIP: BRIN bloom indexes |