| From: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Masahiko Sawada' <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiro Ikeda <ikedamsh(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, 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>, 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: | 2021-06-08 08:28:32 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB29908C7D88188CF409518634FE379@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
> On Tue, Jun 8, 2021 at 9:47 AM tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com
> <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> > Why does the client have to know the error on a remote server, whereas the
> global transaction itself is destined to commit?
>
> It's not necessarily on a remote server. It could be a problem with
> the local server.
Then, in what kind of scenario are we talking about the difficulty, and how is it difficult to handle, when we adopt either the method 1 or 2? (I'd just like to have the same clear picture.) For example,
1. All FDWs prepared successfully.
2. The local transaction prepared successfully, too.
3. Some FDWs committed successfully.
4. One FDW failed to send the commit request because the remote server went down.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2021-06-08 08:45:24 | RE: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-06-08 08:11:51 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |