| From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Jonathan S(dot) Katz" <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw "parallel_commit" docs |
| Date: | 2022-05-11 10:29:28 |
| Message-ID: | CAPmGK178Q6aewrd3oGcPEz+JWOFEdgf71fGWqpor9z-38OaSPg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Justin,
On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 12:58 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, May 09, 2022 at 11:37:35AM -0400, Jonathan S. Katz wrote:
> > - If multiple foreign servers with this option enabled are involved in
> > - a local (sub)transaction, multiple remote (sub)transactions opened on
> > - those foreign servers in the local (sub)transaction are committed in
> > - parallel across those foreign servers when the local (sub)transaction
> > - commits.
> > + If multiple foreign servers with this option enabled have a local
> > + transaction, multiple remote transactions on those foreign servers are
> > + committed in parallel across those foreign servers when the local
> > + transaction is committed.
> > </para>
>
> I think "have a transaction" doesn't sound good, and the old language "involved
> in" was better.
I think so too.
Thanks!
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2022-05-11 10:39:07 | Re: postgres_fdw: commit remote (sub)transactions in parallel during pre-commit |
| Previous Message | Etsuro Fujita | 2022-05-11 10:25:56 | Re: postgres_fdw "parallel_commit" docs |