Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Date
Msg-id 20161019170842.GS5087@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:47:25AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> It seems to me that the only way to really make this feature robust is
> to have a background worker as part of the equation.  The background
> worker launches at startup and looks around for local state that tells
> it whether there are any COMMIT PREPARED or ROLLBACK PREPARED
> operations pending that weren't completed during the last server
> lifetime, whether because of a local crash or remote unavailability.

Yes, you really need both commit on foreign servers before acknowledging
commit to the client, and a background process to clean things up from
an abandoned server.

--  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com

+ As you are, so once was I.  As I am, so you will be. +
+                      Ancient Roman grave inscription +



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Indirect indexes
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Move pg_largeobject to a different tablespace *without* turning on system_table_mods.