Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 2:30 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>>> "txn" can be used for abbreviation of "Transaction", so for example
>>>> pg_fdw_txn_resolver?
>>>> I'm also fine to change the module and function name.
>>>
>>> If we're judging the relative clarity of various ways of abbreviating
>>> the word "transaction", "txn" surely beats "x".
>>>
>>> To repeat my usual refrain, is there any merit to abbreviating at all?
>>> Could we call it, say, "fdw_transaction_resolver" or
>>> "fdw_transaction_manager"?
>>>
>>
>> Almost modules in contrib are name with "pg_" prefix but I prefer
>> "fdw_transcation_resolver" if we don't need "pg_" prefix.
>>
>
> Since previous patches conflict to current HEAD, attached latest
> version patches.
> Please review them.
>

I've created a wiki page[1] describing about the design and
functionality of this feature. Also it has some examples of use case,
so this page would be helpful for even testing. Please refer it if
you're interested in testing this feature.

[1] 2PC on FDW
<https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/2PC_on_FDW>

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center