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 CAA4eK1K_edn6ib2__zLoP=BTAkaQb3uxMF271=5NQ=+N8x48uA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to RE: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2  ("tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 3:03 PM tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com
<tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> From: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
> > So what's your opinion?
>
> * Global visibility
> This is what Amit-san suggested some times -- "design it before reviewing the current patch."  I'm a bit optimistic
aboutthis and think this FDW 2PC can be implemented separately as a pure enhancement of FDW.  But I also understand his
concern. If your (our?) aim is to use this FDW 2PC for sharding, 
>

As far as I understand that is what the goal is for which this is a
step. For example, see the wiki [1]. I understand that wiki is not the
final thing but I have seen other places as well where there is a
mention of FDW based sharding and I feel this is the reason why many
people are trying to improve this area. That is why I suggested having
an upfront design of global visibility and a deadlock detector along
with this work.


[1] - https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/WIP_PostgreSQL_Sharding

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Banck
Date:
Subject: Re: Online verification of checksums
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel copy