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.

Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia

Reply via email to