On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why do we want the the backend to linger behind, once it has added its
>> foreign transaction entries in the shared memory and informed resolver
>> about it? The foreign connections may take their own time and even
>> after that there is no guarantee that the foreign transactions will be
>> resolved in case the foreign server is not available. So, why to make
>> the backend wait?
>
> Because I don't want to break the current user semantics. that is,
> currently it's guaranteed that the subsequent reads can see the
> committed result of previous writes even if the previous transactions
> were distributed transactions.
Right, this is very important, and having the backend wait for the
resolver(s) is, I think, the right way to implement it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
