From: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Muhammad Usama <m(dot)usama(at)gmail(dot)com>, Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ildar Musin <ildar(at)adjust(dot)com>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Chris Travers <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Subject: | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
Date: | 2020-10-19 05:17:42 |
Message-ID: | CA+fd4k4dbogqN4-qjBqCh2H8eY28Sd5BEv9iJN9tnGPhntqrUg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 12 Oct 2020 at 17:19, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> From: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> > I was thinking to have a GUC timeout parameter like statement_timeout.
> > The backend waits for the setting value when resolving foreign
> > transactions.
>
> Me too.
>
>
> > But this idea seems different. FDW can set its timeout
> > via a transaction timeout API, is that right?
>
> I'm not perfectly sure about how the TM( application server works) , but probably no. The TM has a configuration parameter for transaction timeout, and the TM calls XAResource.setTransactionTimeout() with that or smaller value for the argument.
>
>
> > But even if FDW can set
> > the timeout using a transaction timeout API, the problem that client
> > libraries for some DBMS don't support interruptible functions still
> > remains. The user can set a short time to the timeout but it also
> > leads to unnecessary timeouts. Thoughts?
>
> Unfortunately, I'm afraid we can do nothing about it. If the DBMS's client library doesn't support cancellation (e.g. doesn't respond to Ctrl+C or provide a function that cancel processing in pgorogss), then the Postgres user just finds that he can't cancel queries (just like we experienced with odbc_fdw.)
So the idea of using another process to commit prepared foreign
transactions seems better also in terms of this point. Even if a DBMS
client library doesn’t support query cancellation, the transaction
commit can return the control to the client when the user press ctl-c
as the backend process is just sleeping using WaitLatch() (it’s
similar to synchronous replication)
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-10-19 05:25:02 | Re: Resetting spilled txn statistics in pg_stat_replication |
Previous Message | Amit Langote | 2020-10-19 04:54:27 | Re: partition routing layering in nodeModifyTable.c |