pg.ddx.io pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive help / color / mirror / Atom feed From: Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>
To: Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>
Cc: Shigeru Hanada <shigeru.hanada@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: inherit support for foreign tables
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 21:10:37 +0900
Message-ID: <5485953D.6080306@lab.ntt.co.jp> (raw )
In-Reply-To: <CAFjFpRfvncYoKTiL86tanKOSvTiRkvLNmtY4rEMXyZMXg=fddQ@mail.gmail.com >
References: <CAFjFpRcVLtU6jE8h_N1Rc+Y-pDFbmR7YvBvxOXg6aTFrbZ1Z8Q@mail.gmail.com >
<54645499.7050709@lab.ntt.co.jp >
<CAFjFpRcBFVO0YP0nmfygpJOFfWKMkAN1Z8JmrkwyEWXDyMt5Hw@mail.gmail.com >
<CAFjFpRcd=F8Jqx+9yioHKVUA71LXBxO41ia61acjzyzQ4MZqVQ@mail.gmail.com >
<5476FB4B.9060705@lab.ntt.co.jp >
<CAFjFpRd6PR3Seg8D3t-XcXGxXyb+p2WDsk_wBGge7b=PyzP_Qw@mail.gmail.com >
<547D2B1D.1080107@lab.ntt.co.jp >
<CAFjFpRcYN5pMphZ=ATPh9Ya6X4h+fX0LVv1nG9fJZKpL2kopeA@mail.gmail.com >
<547FD69A.8090308@lab.ntt.co.jp >
<CAFjFpRfbE=pNyA8AFkQaB-Pmue5Qjn4UFQ0-V2Fad+3idKCweQ@mail.gmail.com >
<20141206155144.GB1689818@tornado.leadboat.com >
<CAFjFpRfvncYoKTiL86tanKOSvTiRkvLNmtY4rEMXyZMXg=fddQ@mail.gmail.com >
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>
(2014/12/08 15:17), Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com
> <mailto:noah@leadboat.com>> wrote:
> Does this inheritance patch add any
> atomicity
> problem that goes away when one breaks up the inheritance hierarchy and
> UPDATEs each table separately? If not, this limitation is okay.
> If the UPDATES crafted after breaking up the inheritance hierarchy are
> needed to be run within the same transaction (as the UPDATE on
> inheritance hierarchy would do), yes, there is atomicity problem.
ISTM that your concern would basically a known problem. Consider the
following transaction.
BEGIN TRANSACTION;
UPDATE foo SET a = 100; -- updates on table foo in remote server1
UPDATE bar SET a = 100; -- updates on table bar in remote server2
COMMIT TRANSACTION;
This transaction would cause the atomicity problem if
pgfdw_xact_callback() for XACT_EVENT_PRE_COMMIT for foo succeeded and
then that for bar failed during CommitTransaction().
Thanks,
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
view thread (179+ messages) latest in thread
Message-ID: <5485953D.6080306@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Permalink: ../5485953D.6080306@lab.ntt.co.jp/
Also on: postgresql.org/message-id/5485953D.6080306@lab.ntt.co.jp
copy link · copy postgr.es
reply Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp, ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com, noah@leadboat.com, horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp, hlinnakangas@vmware.com, shigeru.hanada@gmail.com
Subject: Re: inherit support for foreign tables
In-Reply-To: <5485953D.6080306@lab.ntt.co.jp>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox