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

From Masahiko Sawada
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Date
Msg-id CAD21AoAYAXpn=+6=_AHb4d8QYogKVaCWTh_6etwcQ9hVcAwkuA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers  (Vinayak Pokale <pokale_vinayak_q3@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 7, 2017 at 5:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 11:56 AM, vinayak
>> <Pokale_Vinayak_q3@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2017/02/28 16:54, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>>>
>>> I've created a wiki page[1] describing about the design and
>>> functionality of this feature. Also it has some examples of use case,
>>> so this page would be helpful for even testing. Please refer it if
>>> you're interested in testing this feature.
>>>
>>> [1] 2PC on FDW
>>> <https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/2PC_on_FDW>
>>>
>>> Thank you for creating the wiki page.
>>
>> Thank you for looking at this patch.
>>
>>> In the "src/test/regress/pg_regress.c" file
>>> -                * xacts.  (Note: to reduce the probability of unexpected
>>> shmmax
>>> -                * failures, don't set max_prepared_transactions any higher
>>> than
>>> -                * actually needed by the prepared_xacts regression test.)
>>> +                * xacts. We also set max_fdw_transctions to enable testing
>>> of atomic
>>> +                * foreign transactions. (Note: to reduce the probability of
>>> unexpected
>>> +                * shmmax failures, don't set max_prepared_transactions or
>>> +                * max_prepared_foreign_transactions any higher than
>>> actually needed by the
>>> +                * corresponding regression tests.).
>>>
>>> I think we are not setting the "max_fdw_transctions" anywhere.
>>> Is this correct?
>>
>> This comment is out of date. Will fix.
>>
>>>
>>> In the "src/bin/pg_waldump/rmgrdesc.c" file following header file used two
>>> times.
>>> + #include "access/fdw_xact.h"
>>> I think we need to remove one line.
>>>
>>
>> Not necessary. Will get rid of it.
>>
>> Since these are not feature bugs I will incorporate these when making
>> update version patches.
>>
>
> Attached updated set of patches.
> The differences from previous patch are,
>   * Fixed a few bugs.
>   * Separated previous 000 patch into two patches.
>   * Changed name pg_fdw_xact_resovler contrib module to
> fdw_transaction_resolver.
>   * Incorporated review comments got from Vinayak
>
> Please review these patches.
>

Since previous v9 patches conflict with current HEAD, I attached latest patches.

Regards,

--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center

-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vaishnavi Prabakaran
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] BRIN cost estimate