On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 4:11 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Why do we want the the backend to linger behind, once it has added its >> foreign transaction entries in the shared memory and informed resolver >> about it? The foreign connections may take their own time and even >> after that there is no guarantee that the foreign transactions will be >> resolved in case the foreign server is not available. So, why to make >> the backend wait? > > Because I don't want to break the current user semantics. that is, > currently it's guaranteed that the subsequent reads can see the > committed result of previous writes even if the previous transactions > were distributed transactions.
Right, this is very important, and having the backend wait for the resolver(s) is, I think, the right way to implement it. -- 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
