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.
Thanks for the update.
I closed it in commitfest 2017-01 with "returned with feedback". Author can
