Re: eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Oleg Bartunov
Subject Re: eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2)
Date
Msg-id CAF4Au4yq0gsh4Hg-6tcow2gso1OBSNBKxriKHZqBC2rPWPT7sQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2)  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Responses Re: eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2)
List pgsql-hackers


On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 7:11 PM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
On 2/10/16 12:50 PM, Konstantin Knizhnik wrote:

> PostgresProffesional cluster teams wants to propose new version of
> eXtensible Transaction Manager API.
> Previous discussion concerning this patch can be found here:
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/F2766B97-555D-424F-B29F-E0CA0F6D1D74@postgrespro.ru

I see a lot of discussion on this thread but little in the way of consensus.

> The API patch itself is small enough, but we think that it will be
> strange to provide just API without examples of its usage.

It's not all that small, though it does apply cleanly even after a few
months.  At least that indicates there is not a lot of churn in this area.

I'm concerned about the lack of response or reviewers for this patch.
It may be because everyone believes they had their say on the original
thread, or because it seems like a big change to go into the last CF, or
for other reasons altogether.

We'll prepare easy setup to play with our solutions, so any developers could see how it works.  Hope this weekend we'll post something about this.

 

I think you should try to make it clear why this patch would be a win
for 9.6.

Looks like discussion shifted to different thread, we'll answer here.

 

Is anyone willing to volunteer a review or make an argument for the
importance of this patch?

--
-David
david@pgmasters.net


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: proposal: make NOTIFY list de-duplication optional
Next
From: David Steele
Date:
Subject: Re: eXtensible Transaction Manager API (v2)