Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
От | Ashutosh Bapat |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAFjFpRfWcKRoyw4PQQkQZbVqJE_0amx=1wfdxxk4dOCDgK8pMA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 28, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.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. > > Perhaps we can use (XactLastRecEnd != 0 && markXidCommitted) to see if > we did any writes on local node which requires the atomic commit. Will > fix. > I haven't checked how much code it needs to track whether the local transaction wrote anything. But probably we can post-pone this optimization. If it's easy to incorporate, it's good to have in the first set itself. -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat EnterpriseDB Corporation The Postgres Database Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: