| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Muhammad Usama <m(dot)usama(at)gmail(dot)com>, amul sul <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sawada Masahiko <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro 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>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
| Date: | 2020-06-26 08:43:51 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LM_Yb_2BZL-SeE29EYvrUPqf3naf4N_pJc-Cn8fqNXwQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 10:50 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2020 at 13:26, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think at this stage it is important that we do some study of various
> > approaches to achieve this work and come up with a comparison of the
> > pros and cons of each approach (a) what this patch provides, (b) what
> > is implemented in Global Snapshots patch [1], (c) if possible, what is
> > implemented in Postgres-XL. I fear that if go too far in spending
> > effort on this and later discovered that it can be better done via
> > some other available patch/work (maybe due to a reasons like that
> > approach can easily extended to provide atomic visibility or the
> > design is more robust, etc.) then it can lead to a lot of rework.
>
> Yeah, I have no objection to that plan but I think we also need to
> keep in mind that (b), (c), and whatever we are thinking about global
> consistency are talking about only PostgreSQL (and postgres_fdw).
>
I think we should explore if those approaches could be extended for
FDWs and if not then that could be considered as a disadvantage of
that approach.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2020-06-26 08:52:49 | Re: Resetting spilled txn statistics in pg_stat_replication |
| Previous Message | Kasahara Tatsuhito | 2020-06-26 08:43:49 | Re: Creating a function for exposing memory usage of backend process |