Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
Date
Msg-id 20200616165406.GB12171@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat.oss@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 06:42:52PM +0530, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> > Is there some mapping between GXID and XIDs allocated for each node or
> > will each node use the GXID as XID to modify the data?   Are we fine
> > with parking the work for global snapshots and atomic visibility to a
> > separate patch and just proceed with the design proposed by this
> > patch?
> 
> Distributed transaction involves, atomic commit,  atomic visibility
> and global consistency. 2PC is the only practical solution for atomic
> commit. There are some improvements over 2PC but those are add ons to
> the basic 2PC, which is what this patch provides. Atomic visibility
> and global consistency however have alternative solutions but all of
> those solutions require 2PC to be supported. Each of those are large
> pieces of work and trying to get everything in may not work. Once we
> have basic 2PC in place, there will be a ground to experiment with
> solutions for global consistency and atomic visibility. If we manage
> to do it right, we could make it pluggable as well. So, I think we
> should concentrate on supporting basic 2PC work now.

Very good summary, thank you.

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

  The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: language cleanups in code and docs
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: hashagg slowdown due to spill changes