Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

From: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, hlinnaka <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Date: 2015-08-11 08:25:08
Message-ID: CAFjFpRf6ywGTCz6cy9aJe5vB=46vnc+ZHQ9qbn31Xve=MTwD_w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Aug 5, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
wrote:

> On 2015-08-05 AM 06:11, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Amit Langote
> > <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> wrote:
> >> On 2015-08-03 PM 09:24, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> >>> For postgres_fdw it's a boolean server-level option
> 'twophase_compliant'
> >>> (suggestions for name welcome).
> >>>
> >>
> >> How about just 'twophase'?
> >
> > How about two_phase_commit?
> >
>
> Much cleaner, +1
>
>
I was more inclined to use an adjective, since it's a property of server,
instead of a noun. But two_phase_commit looks fine as well, included in the
patch attached.

Attached patch addresses all the concerns and suggestions from previous
mails in this mail thread.

--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company

Attachment Content-Type Size
pg_fdw_transact.patch binary/octet-stream 201.4 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2015-08-11 09:43:27 Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-08-11 08:00:23 Re: max_connections and standby server