Re: Options to control remote transactions’ access/deferrable modes in postgres_fdw

From: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Options to control remote transactions’ access/deferrable modes in postgres_fdw
Date: 2025-03-30 10:14:01
Message-ID: CAPmGK16pn+k0tLNR8NvZdtiADpnjZPYK-HuaxwOmzHzUgTE7_A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Mar 27, 2025 at 1:25 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2025 at 4:01 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > In the patch I also fixed a bug; I trusted XactReadOnly to see if the
> > local transaction is READ ONLY, but I noticed that that is not 100%
> > correct, because a transaction which started as READ WRITE can show as
> > READ ONLY later within subtransactions, so I modified the patch so
> > that postgres_fdw opens remote transactions in READ ONLY mode if the
> > local transaction has been declared READ ONLY at the top level.
>
> Nice catch. postgres_fdw replicates the transaction stack on foreign
> server. I think we need to replicate it along with the transaction
> properties. And also we need a test which tests readonly
> subtransaction behaviour.

Ok, will do.

Thanks for the comment!

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2025-03-30 10:23:29 Thinko in pgstat_build_snapshot()
Previous Message Alexander Lakhin 2025-03-30 09:00:00 The 026_overwrite_contrecord test might fail on extremely slow animals