| From: | Etsuro Fujita <fujita(dot)etsuro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Rushabh Lathia <rushabh(dot)lathia(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Albe Laurenz <laurenz(dot)albe(at)wien(dot)gv(dot)at>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Shigeru Hanada <shigeru(dot)hanada(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimization for updating foreign tables in Postgres FDW |
| Date: | 2016-04-27 03:16:01 |
| Message-ID: | 57202EF1.9010004@lab.ntt.co.jp |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016/04/26 21:45, Etsuro Fujita wrote:
> While re-reviewing the fix, I noticed that since PQcancel we added to
> pgfdw_xact_callback to cancel a DML pushdown query isn't followed by a
> ROLLBACK, the connection to the remote server will be discarded at the
> end of the while loop in that function, which will cause a FATAL error
> of "connection to client lost". Probably, that was proposed by me in
> the first version of the patch, but I don't think that's a good idea.
> Shouldn't we execute ROLLBACK after that PQcancel?
>
> Another thing I noticed is, ISTM that we miss the case where DML
> pushdown queries are performed in subtransactions. I think cancellation
> logic would also need to be added to pgfdw_subxact_callback.
Attached is a patch for that.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pgfdw-xact-subxact-callbacks.patch | text/x-diff | 2.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-04-27 03:35:57 | Re: [BUGS] Breakage with VACUUM ANALYSE + partitions |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-04-27 03:12:18 | Re: EXPLAIN VERBOSE with parallel Aggregate |