On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Oleg Bartunov <obartu...@gmail.com> wrote: > I already several times pointed, that we need XTM to be able to continue > development in different directions, since there is no clear winner. > Moreover, I think there is no fits-all solution and while I agree we need > one built-in in the core, other approaches should have ability to exists > without patching.
I don't think I necessarily agree with that. Transaction management is such a fundamental part of the system that I think making it pluggable is going to be really hard. I understand that you've done several implementations based on your proposed API, and that's good as far as it goes, but how do we know that's really going to be general enough for what other people might need? And what makes us think we really need multiple transaction managers, anyway? Even writing one good distributed transaction manager seems like a really hard project - why would we want to write two or three or five? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
