From: | Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw: Provide better emulation of READ COMMITTED behavior |
Date: | 2024-12-08 03:23:47 |
Message-ID: | 8734iyg8n0.fsf@163.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 6, 2024 at 7:50 PM Andy Fan <zhihuifan1213(at)163(dot)com> wrote:
>> Apart from the above issue, what do you think about that we are using a
>> 'SELECT pg_catalog.pg_refresh_snapshot()' to let the remote do the
>> refresh_snapshot VS 'a new message type for this'? There are lots of
>> things happen in the 'SELECT' way like 'a extra network communication',
>> 'a complete parser-planner-executor workflow.' With a new message type
>> for this, we can send the message character with the next query
>> together. if so, can the two overheads removed?
>
> I think it might be a good idea to extend simple/extend query
> protocols that way, but even if so, I would like to leave that for
> future work, because even without that, I think this is still an
> improvement, and I do not want to set the goal for the first cut too
> high.
That's reasonable.
> Having said that, if the next query uses simple query protocol, we can
> avoid the extra communication by sending the two queries in a single
> function call. I will do that in the next version.
Good to know that.
After reading the patch, the changes looks good to me except the name of
ThereAre[No]OldLivePortals(), multiple negations can be somewhat confusing
at times. Opinions may vary, However. I point this out just in case this
is done by mistake when you were refactoring the code. If you think the
current one is better, I'm totoally OK with it.
--
Best Regards
Andy Fan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2024-12-08 03:46:14 | Fix early elog(FATAL) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-12-08 03:11:22 | Re: Do not scan index in right table if condition for left join evaluates to false using columns in left table |