On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Ashutosh Bapat < ashutosh.ba...@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Haribabu Kommi > <kommi.harib...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> > >> 2PC is a basic building block to support the atomic commit and there > >> are some optimizations way in order to reduce disadvantage of 2PC. As > >> you mentioned, it's hard to support a single model that would suit > >> several type of FDWs. But even if it's not a purpose for sharding, > >> because many other database which could be connected to PostgreSQL via > >> FDW supports 2PC, 2PC for FDW would be useful for not only sharding > >> purpose. That's why I was focusing on implementing 2PC for FDW so far. > > > > > > Moved to next CF with "needs review" status. > > I think this should be changed to "returned with feedback.". The > design and approach itself needs to be discussed. I think, we should > let authors decide whether they want it to be added to the next > commitfest or not. > > When I first started with this work, Tom had suggested me to try to > make PREPARE and COMMIT/ROLLBACK PREPARED involving foreign servers or > at least postgres_fdw servers work. I think, most of my work that > Vinayak and Sawada have rebased to the latest master will be required > for getting what Tom suggested done. We wouldn't need a lot of changes > to that design. PREPARE involving foreign servers errors out right > now. If we start supporting prepared transactions involving foreign > servers that will be a good improvement over the current status-quo. > Once we get that done, we can continue working on the larger problem > of supporting ACID transactions involving foreign servers. Thanks for the update. I closed it in commitfest 2017-01 with "returned with feedback". Author can update it once the new patch is submitted. Regards, Hari Babu Fujitsu Australia
