Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Subject | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1+miCgu8_OjGQcmyMGhCGnreJttEnnmDRzZWWH3xyrhAw@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
| Responses |
Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
|
| List | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > The previous patch would not compile on the latest HEAD. Here's updated
> > patch.
>
> Perhaps unsurprisingly, this doesn't apply any more. But we have
> bigger things to worry about.
>
> The recent eXtensible Transaction Manager and the slides shared at the
> Vienna sharding summit, now posted at
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8hhdhUVwRHyMXpRRHRSLWFXeXc/view make
> me think that some careful thought is needed here about what we want
> and how it should work. Slide 10 proposes a method for the extensible
> transaction manager API to interact with FDWs. The FDW would do this:
>
> select dtm_join_transaction(xid);
> begin transaction;
> update...;
> commit;
>
> I think the idea here is that the commit command doesn't really
> commit; it just escapes the distributed transaction while leaving it
> marked not-committed. When the transaction subsequently commits on
> the local server, the XID is marked committed and the effects of the
> transaction become visible on all nodes.
> I think that this API is intended to provide not only consistent
> cross-node decisions about whether a particular transaction has
> committed, but also consistent visibility. If the API is sufficient
> for that and if it can be made sufficiently performant, that's a
> strictly stronger guarantee than what this proposal would provide.
>
>
>
> On the whole, I'm inclined to think that the XTM-based approach is
> probably more useful and more general, if we can work out the problems
> with it. I'm not sure that I'm right, though, nor am I sure how hard
> it will be.
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
> <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > The previous patch would not compile on the latest HEAD. Here's updated
> > patch.
>
> Perhaps unsurprisingly, this doesn't apply any more. But we have
> bigger things to worry about.
>
> The recent eXtensible Transaction Manager and the slides shared at the
> Vienna sharding summit, now posted at
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8hhdhUVwRHyMXpRRHRSLWFXeXc/view make
> me think that some careful thought is needed here about what we want
> and how it should work. Slide 10 proposes a method for the extensible
> transaction manager API to interact with FDWs. The FDW would do this:
>
> select dtm_join_transaction(xid);
> begin transaction;
> update...;
> commit;
>
> I think the idea here is that the commit command doesn't really
> commit; it just escapes the distributed transaction while leaving it
> marked not-committed. When the transaction subsequently commits on
> the local server, the XID is marked committed and the effects of the
> transaction become visible on all nodes.
>
As per my reading of the slides shared by you, the commit in above
context would send a message to Arbiter which indicates it's Vote
for being ready to commit and when Arbiter gets the votes from all
nodes participating in transaction, it sends back an ok message
(this is what I could understand from slides 12 and 13). I think on
receiving ok message each node will mark the transaction as
committed.
> I think that this API is intended to provide not only consistent
> cross-node decisions about whether a particular transaction has
> committed, but also consistent visibility. If the API is sufficient
> for that and if it can be made sufficiently performant, that's a
> strictly stronger guarantee than what this proposal would provide.
>
>
>
> On the whole, I'm inclined to think that the XTM-based approach is
> probably more useful and more general, if we can work out the problems
> with it. I'm not sure that I'm right, though, nor am I sure how hard
> it will be.
>
If I understood correctly, then the main difference between 2PC idea
used in this patch (considering we find some way of sharing snapshots
in this approach) and what is shared in slides is that XTM-based
approach relies on an external identity which it refers to as Arbiter for
performing consistent transaction commit/abort and sharing of snapshots
across all the nodes whereas in the approach in this patch, the transaction
originator (or we can call it as coordinator) is responsible for consistent
transaction commit/abort. I think the plus-point of XTM based approach is
that it provides way of sharing snapshots, but I think we still needs to evaluate
what is the overhead of communication between these methods, as far as I
can see, in Arbiter based approach, Arbiter could become single point of
contention for coordinating messages for all the transactions in a system
whereas if we extend this approach such a contention could be avoided.
Now it is very well possible that the number of messages shared between
nodes in Arbiter based approach are lesser, but still contention could play a
major role. Also another important point which needs some more thought
before concluding on any approach is detection of deadlocks between different
nodes, in the slides shared by you, there is no discussion of deadlocks,
so it is not clear whether it will work as it is without any modification or do
we need any modifications and deadlock detection system and if yes, then
how that will be achieved.
pgsql-hackers by date: