Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2

From: Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: 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>, "ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com" <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(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: 2021-05-01 16:27:16
Message-ID: CALNJ-vTbyv5kAhstn8pzaaK7nqZrRF4JTF9qR8hTEpCLZvWMYg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 9:09 PM Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 6:03 PM Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > For v35-0007-Prepare-foreign-transactions-at-commit-time.patch :
>
> Thank you for reviewing the patch!
>
> >
> > With this commit, the foreign server modified within the transaction
> marked as 'modified'.
> >
> > transaction marked -> transaction is marked
>
> Will fix.
>
> >
> > +#define IsForeignTwophaseCommitRequested() \
> > + (foreign_twophase_commit > FOREIGN_TWOPHASE_COMMIT_DISABLED)
> >
> > Since the other enum is FOREIGN_TWOPHASE_COMMIT_REQUIRED, I think the
> macro should be named: IsForeignTwophaseCommitRequired.
>
> But even if foreign_twophase_commit is
> FOREIGN_TWOPHASE_COMMIT_REQUIRED, the two-phase commit is not used if
> there is only one modified server, right? It seems the name
> IsForeignTwophaseCommitRequested is fine.
>
> >
> > +static bool
> > +checkForeignTwophaseCommitRequired(bool local_modified)
> >
> > + if (!ServerSupportTwophaseCommit(fdw_part))
> > + have_no_twophase = true;
> > ...
> > + if (have_no_twophase)
> > + ereport(ERROR,
> >
> > It seems the error case should be reported within the loop. This way, we
> don't need to iterate the other participant(s).
> > Accordingly, nserverswritten should be incremented for local server
> prior to the loop. The condition in the loop would become if
> (!ServerSupportTwophaseCommit(fdw_part) && nserverswritten > 1).
> > have_no_twophase is no longer needed.
>
> Hmm, I think If we process one 2pc-non-capable server first and then
> process another one 2pc-capable server, we should raise an error but
> cannot detect that.
>

Then the check would stay as what you have in the patch:

if (!ServerSupportTwophaseCommit(fdw_part))

When the non-2pc-capable server is encountered, we would report the error
in place (following the ServerSupportTwophaseCommit check) and come out of
the loop.
have_no_twophase can be dropped.

Thanks

>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Masahiko Sawada
> EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chapman Flack 2021-05-01 16:37:16 Re: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers
Previous Message Mark Dilger 2021-05-01 16:13:49 Re: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers