public inbox for [email protected]
help / color / mirror / Atom feedFrom: Fujii Masao <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Shinya Kato' <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Add foreign-server health checks infrastructure
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2022 23:51:54 +0900
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <TYAPR01MB5866D5297140DA5908ECFD27F5269@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
References: <TYAPR01MB58662809E678253B90E82CE5F5889@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYAPR01MB58661992162BA7708191EC79F5619@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CALNJ-vQWNK6AzpL=5iXLfpr4oRMYdJ72tDYhxLwd=iX5H5XUdQ@mail.gmail.com>
<TYAPR01MB5866D73C56A4363039175E56F5669@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<CALNJ-vSDLaDnbJpDuKTKwugX+dUnoLD+eEXHdR-aBRXG1Dh3hA@mail.gmail.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYAPR01MB5866BC188389FA07C0E6CFE1F5769@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYAPR01MB58667F6B6773141CE81D6AA5F55A9@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<TYAPR01MB58669361410DFD6B01DF45E3F55B9@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
<[email protected]>
<TYAPR01MB5866D5297140DA5908ECFD27F5269@TYAPR01MB5866.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com>
On 2022/02/01 13:37, [email protected] wrote:
> Dear Fujii-san,
>
> Thank you for reviewing! I attached the latest version.
Thanks!
> Indeed and it should be avoided. I added a counter to CheckingRemoteServersCallbackItem.
> The register function returns the registered item, and it must be set as the argument for
> enable and disable functions.
> Callback functions will be called when item->counter is larger than zero.
This logic sounds complicated to me. I'm afraid that FDW developers may a bit easily misunderstand the logic and make the bug in their FDW.
Isn't it simpler to just disable the timeout in core whenever the transaction ends whether committed or aborted, like statement_timeout is disabled after each command? For example, call something like DisableForeignCheckTimeout() in CommitTransaction() etc.
> You are right. I think this suggests that error-reporting should be done in the core layer.
> For meaningful error reporting, I changed a callback specification
> that it should return ForeignServer* which points to downed remote server.
This approach seems to assume that FDW must manage all the ForeignServer information so that the callback can return it. Is this assumption valid for all the FDW?
How about making FDW trigger a query cancel interrupt by signaling SIGINT to the backend, instead?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
view thread (10+ messages) latest in thread
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Proposal] Add foreign-server health checks infrastructure
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by agora; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox