From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | vinayak <Pokale_Vinayak_q3(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, Vinayak Pokale <vinpokale(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Subject: | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |
Date: | 2017-01-13 06:48:10 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoC4T0JTGmGLoeOBZX9xSYvHaWciV4aV57tGkim22Lq-dQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:20 PM, Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Long time passed since original patch proposed by Ashutosh, so I
>> explain again about current design and functionality of this feature.
>> If you have any question, please feel free to ask.
>
> Thanks for the summary.
>
>>
>> Parameters
>> ==========
>
> [ snip ]
>
>>
>> Cluster-wide atomic commit
>> =======================
>> Since the distributed transaction commit on foreign servers are
>> executed independently, the transaction that modified data on the
>> multiple foreign servers is not ensured that transaction did either
>> all of them commit or all of them rollback. The patch adds the
>> functionality that guarantees distributed transaction did either
>> commit or rollback on all foreign servers. IOW the goal of this patch
>> is achieving the cluster-wide atomic commit across foreign server that
>> is capable two phase commit protocol.
>
> In [1], I proposed that we solve the problem of supporting PREPARED
> transactions involving foreign servers and in subsequent mail Vinayak
> agreed to that. But this goal has wider scope than that proposal. I am
> fine widening the scope, but then it would again lead to the same
> discussion we had about the big picture. May be you want to share
> design (or point out the parts of this design that will help) for
> solving smaller problem and tone down the patch for the same.
>
Sorry for confuse you. I'm still focusing on solving only that
problem. What I was trying to say is that I think that supporting
PREPARED transaction involving foreign server is the means, not the
end. So once we supports PREPARED transaction involving foreign
servers we can achieve cluster-wide atomic commit in a sense.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2017-01-13 07:00:19 | Re: Push down more full joins in postgres_fdw |
Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2017-01-13 06:44:03 | Re: Misplacement of function declaration in contrib/postgres_fdw/postgres_fdw.h |