| From: | Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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>, "sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com" <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, "masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com" <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(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: | 2020-10-20 12:11:16 |
| Message-ID: | CA+fd4k4yNqNRXw3NEXdy=jPWvAN8QT1u4U1StPr5O3UtdZVO-A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 at 16:54, tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
>
> From: Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > At Tue, 20 Oct 2020 15:53:29 +0900, Masahiko Sawada
> > <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote in
> > > I think it doesn't matter whether in FDW framework or not. The user
> > > normally doesn't care which backend processes connecting to foreign
> > > servers. They will attempt to cancel the query like always if they
> > > realized that a backend gets stuck. There are surely plenty of users
> > > who use query cancellation.
> >
> > The most serious impact from inability of canceling a query on a
> > certain session is that server-restart is required to end such a
> > session.
>
> OK, as I may be repeating, I didn't deny the need for cancellation.
So what's your opinion?
> Let''s organize the argument.
>
> * FDW in general
> My understanding is that the FDW feature does not stipulate anything about cancellation. In fact, odbc_fdw was uncancelable. What do we do about this?
>
> * postgres_fdw
> Fortunately, it is (should be?) cancelable whatever method we choose for 2PC. So no problem.
> But is it really cancellable now? What if the libpq call is waiting for response when the foreign server or network is down?
I don’t think we need to stipulate the query cancellation. Anyway I
guess the facts neither that we don’t stipulate anything about query
cancellation now nor that postgres_fdw might not be cancellable in
some situations now are not a reason for not supporting query
cancellation. If it's a desirable behavior and users want it, we need
to put an effort to support it as much as possible like we’ve done in
postgres_fdw. Some FDWs unfortunately might not be able to support it
only by their functionality but it would be good if we can achieve
that by combination of PostgreSQL and FDW plugins.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-10-20 12:22:31 | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2020-10-20 12:04:06 | Re: [doc] improve tableoid description |