| From: | "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Andrey V(dot) Lepikhov'" <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | 'Fujii Masao' <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <masahiko(dot)sawada(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Global snapshots |
| Date: | 2021-03-25 05:06:11 |
| Message-ID: | TYAPR01MB299037242B6A5C0B6F9C84AEFE629@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: Andrey V. Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
> Current state of the patch set rebased on master, 5aed6a1fc2.
>
> It is development version. Here some problems with visibility still detected in
> two tests:
> 1. CSN Snapshot module - TAP test on time skew.
> 2. Clock SI implementation - TAP test on emulation of bank transaction.
I'm sorry to be late to respond. Thank you for the update.
As discussed at the HighGo meeting, what do you think we should do about this patch set, now that we agreed that Clock-SI is covered by Microsoft's patent? I'd appreciate it if you could share some idea to change part of the algorithm and circumvent the patent.
Otherwise, why don't we discuss alternatives, such as the Commitment Ordering?
I have a hunch that YugabyteDB's method seems promising, which I wrote in the following wiki. Of course, we should make efforts to see if it's patented before diving deeper into the design or implementation.
Scaleout Design - PostgreSQL wiki
https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Scaleout_Design
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-03-25 05:08:05 | Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-03-25 05:02:53 | Re: shared-memory based stats collector |