Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
От | Laurenz Albe |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | f44318e1ac5074268f0925e8c6e0619780a71fef.camel@cybertec.at обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2 ("tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com" <tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com>) |
Ответы |
RE: Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers, take 2
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 2020-07-17 at 05:21 +0000, tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com wrote: > From: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com> > I have briefly checked the only oracle_fdw but in general I think that > > if an existing FDW supports transaction begin, commit, and rollback, > > these can be ported to new FDW transaction APIs easily. > > Does oracle_fdw support begin, commit and rollback? Yes. > And most importantly, do other major DBMSs, including Oracle, provide the API for > preparing a transaction? In other words, will the FDWs other than postgres_fdw > really be able to take advantage of the new FDW functions to join the 2PC processing? > I think we need to confirm that there are concrete examples. I bet they do. There is even a standard for that. I am not looking forward to adapting oracle_fdw, and I didn't read the patch. But using distributed transactions is certainly a good thing if it is done right. The trade off is the need for a transaction manager, and implementing that correctly is a high price to pay. Yours, Laurenz Albe
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: