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

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmobX0=FhFhjD=XC5BQkSxE_tiGWsq_UTrWtLdjRHQbfqhg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> In short, you can't force 2PC technology on people who aren't using it
> already; while for those who are using it already, this isn't nearly
> good enough as-is.

I was involved in some internal discussions related to this patch, so
I have some opinions on it.  The long-term, high-level goal here is to
facilitate sharding.  If we've got a bunch of PostgreSQL servers
interlinked via postgres_fdw, it should be possible to perform
transactions on the cluster in such a way that transactions are just
as atomic, consistent, isolated, and durable as they would be with
just one server.  As far as I know, there is no way to achieve this
goal through the use of an external transaction manager, because even
if that external transaction manager guarantees, for every
transaction, that the transaction either commits on all nodes or rolls
back on all nodes, there's no way for it to guarantee that other
transactions won't see some intermediate state where the commit has
been completed on some nodes but not others.  To get that, you need
some of integration that reaches down to the way snapshots are taken.

I think, though, that it might be worthwhile to first solve the
simpler problem of figuring out how to ensure that a transaction
commits everywhere or rolls back everywhere, even if intermediate
states might still be transiently visible.   I don't think this patch,
as currently designed, is equal to that challenge, because
XACT_EVENT_PRE_COMMIT fires before the transaction is certain to
commit - PreCommit_CheckForSerializationFailure or PreCommit_Notify
could still error out.  We could have a hook that fires after that,
but that doesn't solve the problem if a user of that hook can itself
throw an error.  Even if part of the API contract is that it's not
allowed to do so, the actual attempt to commit the change on the
remote side can fail due to - e.g. - a network interruption, and
that's go to be dealt with somehow.

-- 
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Atri Sharma
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Patch to add functionality to specify ORDER BY in CREATE FUNCTION for SRFs
Next
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review