On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Haribabu Kommi
<kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 2PC is a basic building block to support the atomic commit and there
>> are some optimizations way in order to reduce disadvantage of 2PC. As
>> you mentioned, it's hard to support a single model that would suit
>> several type of FDWs. But even if it's not a purpose for sharding,
>> because many other database which could be connected to PostgreSQL via
>> FDW supports 2PC, 2PC for FDW would be useful for not only sharding
>> purpose. That's why I was focusing on implementing 2PC for FDW so far.
>
>
> Moved to next CF with "needs review" status.
I think this should be changed to "returned with feedback.". The
design and approach itself needs to be discussed. I think, we should
let authors decide whether they want it to be added to the next
commitfest or not.
When I first started with this work, Tom had suggested me to try to
make PREPARE and COMMIT/ROLLBACK PREPARED involving foreign servers or
at least postgres_fdw servers work. I think, most of my work that
Vinayak and Sawada have rebased to the latest master will be required
for getting what Tom suggested done. We wouldn't need a lot of changes
to that design. PREPARE involving foreign servers errors out right
now. If we start supporting prepared transactions involving foreign
servers that will be a good improvement over the current status-quo.
Once we get that done, we can continue working on the larger problem
of supporting ACID transactions involving foreign servers.
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
EnterpriseDB Corporation
The Postgres Database Company
