From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Andrey Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes. |
Date: | 2021-05-07 15:55:07 |
Message-ID: | CAPmGK16PzmShES=4jH+usW+8SK3qduevob9TVw_m=ibWFOGcZg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 7, 2021 at 2:12 AM Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> wrote:
> I'd suggest the language point out that it's not actually possible to do
> otherwise, since they all need to be part of the same transaction.
>
> Without that, it looks like we're just missing a trick somewhere and
> someone might think that they could improve PG to open multiple
> connections to the same remote server to execute them in parallel.
Agreed.
> Maybe:
>
> In order to ensure that the data being returned from a foreign server
> is consistent, postgres_fdw will only open one connection for a given
> foreign server and will run all queries against that server sequentially
> even if there are multiple foreign tables involved. In such a case, it
> may be more performant to disable this option to eliminate the overhead
> associated with running queries asynchronously.
Ok, I’ll merge this into the next version.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2021-05-07 16:05:47 | Re: Asynchronous Append on postgres_fdw nodes. |
Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2021-05-07 15:27:01 | Re: Anti-critical-section assertion failure in mcxt.c reached by walsender |