| From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, Ibrar Ahmed <ibrar(dot)ahmad(at)gmail(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, "ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com" <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, "amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com" <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, "m(dot)usama(at)gmail(dot)com" <m(dot)usama(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, "sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com" <sulamul(at)gmail(dot)com>, "alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com" <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, "ildar(at)adjust(dot)com" <ildar(at)adjust(dot)com>, "horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp" <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com" <chris(dot)travers(at)adjust(dot)com>, "robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp" <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
| Date: | 2021-05-25 12:59:07 |
| Message-ID: | CAD21AoA71CgEeXtoXp6=axca47q11G=xqryu2MQez0JfxT9WOQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 5:48 PM Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2021/05/21 13:45, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> >
> > Yes. We also might need to be careful about the order of foreign
> > transaction resolution. I think we need to resolve foreign> transactions in arrival order at least within a foreign server.
>
> I agree it's better.
>
> (Although this is my interest...)
> Is it necessary? Although this idea seems to be for atomic visibility,
> 2PC can't realize that as you know. So, I wondered that.
I think it's for fairness. If a foreign transaction arrived earlier
gets put off so often for other foreign transactions arrived later due
to its index in FdwXactCtl->xacts, it’s not understandable for users
and not fair. I think it’s better to handle foreign transactions in
FIFO manner (although this problem exists even in the current code).
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ajin Cherian | 2021-05-25 13:06:28 | Re: logical replication empty transactions |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2021-05-25 12:41:27 | Re: Skipping logical replication transactions on subscriber side |