Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Vinayak Pokale <vinpokale(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Date: 2016-09-28 01:04:14
Message-ID: CAB7nPqSAOQHsFtGBOnFQ6dUALb6-iD5=dikZLP42vzPoTw7C8A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> * Providing the prepare id of 2PC.
> Current patch adds new API prepare_id_provider() but we can use the
> prepare id of 2PC that is used on parent server.

And we assume that when this is used across many servers there will be
no GID conflict because each server is careful enough to generate
unique strings, say with UUIDs?
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mark Dilger 2016-09-28 01:12:30 Re: typedef FileName not const?
Previous Message Thomas Munro 2016-09-28 00:39:29 Re: Tracking wait event for latches