Kaigai-san,
(2012/09/13 16:56), Kohei KaiGai wrote:
> What about your plan to upstream contrib/pgsql_fdw module on the upcoming
> commit-fest?
I will post pgsql_fdw patch (though it will be renamed to
postgresql_fdw) in opening CF (2012 Sep), as soon as I resolve a bug in
ANALYZE support, maybe on tomorrow. :-)
> Even though I understand the point I noticed (miss-synchronization of sub-
> transaction block between local and remote side) is never easy problem to
> solve, it is worth to get the patch on the table of discussion.
> In my opinion, it is an idea to split-off the transaction control portion as
> a limitation of current version. For example, just raise an error when
> the foreign-table being referenced in sub-transaction block; with explicit
> description in the document.
I agree not to support synchronize TX block between remote and local, at
least in next CF (I mean keeping remote TX open until local COMMIT or
ABORT). It would require 2PC and many issues to be solved, so I'd like
to focus fundamental part first. OTOH, using foreign tables in
sub-transaction seems essential to me.
> Anyway, let me pick up your patch for reviewing. And, I hope you to prepare
> contrib/pgsql_fdw patch based on this patch.
Thanks for your volunteer :-)
Regards,
--
Shigeru HANADA
