From: | Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Vinayak Pokale <pokale_vinayak_q3(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |
Date: | 2017-09-27 10:12:43 |
Message-ID: | 57E465AD-BFE9-45DB-A7EC-DAE88E0A3ED3@postgrespro.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> On 26 Sep 2017, at 12:06, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Based on the review comment from Robert, I'm planning to do the big
> change to the architecture of this patch so that a backend process
> work together with a dedicated background worker that is responsible
> for resolving the foreign transactions.
For what it worth, I rebased latest patch to current master.
As far as I understand it is planned to change resolver arch,
so is it okay to review code that is intended for non-faulty
work scenarios?
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
fdw2pc_v13.diff | application/octet-stream | 172.1 KB |
unknown_filename | text/plain | 96 bytes |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Taiki Kondo | 2017-09-27 10:41:26 | Float value 'Infinity' is cast to numeric 1 on Windows |
Previous Message | Jeevan Chalke | 2017-09-27 10:12:29 | Re: Partition-wise aggregation/grouping |