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

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+Orq3GYBqYmyOuewMkj3f_wENTe3MMvwQ6Y0XVu00zPg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2  (Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:03 AM Masahiko Sawada
<masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>
> I've attached the latest version patches. I've incorporated the review
> comments I got so far and improved locking strategy.
>

Thanks for updating the patch.

> Please review it.
>

I think at this stage it is important that we do some study of various
approaches to achieve this work and come up with a comparison of the
pros and cons of each approach (a) what this patch provides, (b) what
is implemented in Global Snapshots patch [1], (c) if possible, what is
implemented in Postgres-XL.  I fear that if go too far in spending
effort on this and later discovered that it can be better done via
some other available patch/work (maybe due to a reasons like that
approach can easily extended to provide atomic visibility or the
design is more robust, etc.) then it can lead to a lot of rework.

[1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200622150636.GB28999%40momjian.us

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Backpatch b61d161c14 (Introduce vacuum errcontext ...)
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Removal of currtid()/currtid2() and some table AM cleanup