From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Global snapshots |
Date: | 2018-05-01 19:43:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoazjBL1D-hSV-pMYK=g9L-Zc3v0Gh7TiAhMYRzo6nXdSg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 1, 2018 at 12:27 PM, Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> Here proposed a set of patches that allow achieving proper snapshot isolation
> semantics in the case of cross-node transactions. Provided infrastructure to
> synchronize snapshots between different Postgres instances and a way to
> atomically commit such transaction with respect to other concurrent global and
> local transactions. Such global transactions can be coordinated outside of
> Postgres by using provided SQL functions or through postgres_fdw, which make use
> of this functions on remote nodes transparently.
I'm concerned about the provisioning aspect of this problem. Suppose
I have two existing database systems with, perhaps, wildly different
XID counters. On a certain date, I want to start using this system.
Or conversely, I have two systems that are bonded together using this
system from the beginning, and then, as of a certain date, I want to
break them apart into two standalone systems. In your proposed
design, are things like this possible? Can you describe the setup
involved?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2018-05-01 19:44:22 | Re: power() function in Windows: "value out of range: underflow" |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2018-05-01 19:24:42 | Re: Should we add GUCs to allow partition pruning to be disabled? |