Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
От | Amit Kapila |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAA4eK1+Orq3GYBqYmyOuewMkj3f_wENTe3MMvwQ6Y0XVu00zPg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 (Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 9:03 AM Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > I've attached the latest version patches. I've incorporated the review > comments I got so far and improved locking strategy. > Thanks for updating the patch. > Please review it. > I think at this stage it is important that we do some study of various approaches to achieve this work and come up with a comparison of the pros and cons of each approach (a) what this patch provides, (b) what is implemented in Global Snapshots patch [1], (c) if possible, what is implemented in Postgres-XL. I fear that if go too far in spending effort on this and later discovered that it can be better done via some other available patch/work (maybe due to a reasons like that approach can easily extended to provide atomic visibility or the design is more robust, etc.) then it can lead to a lot of rework. [1] - https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20200622150636.GB28999%40momjian.us -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: