On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Ashutosh Bapat
wrote:
> In a nearby thread, we are discussing about atomic commit of
> transactions involving foreign transactions. For maintaining
> consistency, atomicity of transactions writing to foreign server, we
> will need to create local transactions. Wil
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 5:44 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 18 October 2017 at 02:01, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Alexander Korotkov
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We're currently blocking writing queries on standby if even they are
>>> modifying contents of foreign tables.
Hi guys,
please help me to understand the proposal.
Take a simple configuration: Two "live" systems S1 and S2 and for each of them
a Replica R1 and R2. So S1 sends data to R1 and S2 to R2.
S1 has foreign tables on S2 with write access, meaning you can change a few
data from S1 where information i
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Craig Ringer wrote:
> Superficially at least, it sounds like a good idea.
Indeed.
> We should only need a virtual xid when we're working with foreign
> tables since we don't do any local heap changes.
>
> How's it work with savepoints?
That's one thing to worry
On 18 October 2017 at 02:01, Alexander Korotkov
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Alexander Korotkov
> wrote:
>>
>> We're currently blocking writing queries on standby if even they are
>> modifying contents of foreign tables. But do we have serious reasons for
>> that?
>> Keeping in the m
On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 4:42 PM, Alexander Korotkov <
a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> We're currently blocking writing queries on standby if even they are
> modifying contents of foreign tables. But do we have serious reasons for
> that?
> Keeping in the mind FDW-sharding, making FDW-tables wr
