Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
От | Masahiko Sawada |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD21AoD5Pxm3r7SM02K80huDTPJwOR=JKHc9tW_eMjpEDU7_=g@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 11:38 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki > <tsunakawa.takay@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: >> (1) >> Why don't you use the existing global variable MyXactFlags instead of the new TransactionDidWrite? Or, how about usingXactLastRecEnd != 0 to determine the transaction did any writes? When the transaction only modified temporary tableson the local database and some data on one remote database, I think 2pc is unnecessary. > > If I understand correctly, XactLastRecEnd can be set by, for example, > a HOT cleanup record, so that doesn't seem like a good thing to use. Yes, that's right. > Whether we need to use 2PC across remote nodes seems like it shouldn't > depend on whether a local SELECT statement happened to do a HOT > cleanup or not. So I think we need to check if the top transaction is invalid or not as well. Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION NTT Open Source Software Center
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: