From: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>
> To avoid misunderstanding, I didn't mean to disregard the performance.
> I mean especially for the transaction management feature it's
> essential to work fine even in failure cases. So I hope we have a
> safe, robust, and probably simple design for the first version that
> might be low performance yet though but have a potential for
> performance improvement and we will be able to try to improve
> performance later.
Yes, correctness (safety?) is a basic premise. I understand that given the time left for PG 14, we haven't yet given
upa sound design that offers practical or normally expected performance. I don't think the design has not well thought
yetto see if it's simple or complex. At least, I don't believe doing "send commit request, perform commit on a remote
server,and wait for reply" sequence one transaction at a time in turn is what this community (and other DBMSs)
tolerate. A kid's tricycle is safe, but it's not safe to ride a tricycle on the road. Let's not rush to commit and do
ourbest!
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
