Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Vinayak Pokale <pokale_vinayak_q3(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Date: 2017-07-28 14:14:08
Message-ID: CAB7nPqT5jp+eeP6FKhpaY8AQPFNmCetwVK7ueTF1KeSQBNfmFQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> That also requires to share the same XID space with all remote nodes.

You are putting your finger on the main bottleneck with global
consistency that XC and XL has because of that. And the source feeding
the XIDs is a SPOF.

> Perhaps the CSN based snapshot can make this more simple.

Hm. This needs a closer look.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Joseph Krogh 2017-07-28 14:35:08 Clarification in pg10's pgupgrade.html step 10 (upgrading standby servers)
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-07-28 13:52:40 Re: pl/perl extension fails on Windows