Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Daniel Gustafsson
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers
Дата
Msg-id 6C87E328-116F-4AB0-87C5-803CF933F6E1@yesql.se
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Transactions involving multiple postgres foreign servers  (Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
> On 02 Oct 2017, at 08:31, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 11:15 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I think that making a resolver process have connection caches to each
>>> foreign server for a while can reduce the overhead of connection to
>>> foreign servers. These connections will be invalidated by DDLs. Also,
>>> most of the time we spend to commit a distributed transaction is the
>>> interaction between the coordinator and foreign servers using
>>> two-phase commit protocal. So I guess the time in signalling to a
>>> resolver process would not be a big overhead.
>>
>> I agree.  Also, in the future, we might try to allow connections to be
>> shared across backends.  I did some research on this a number of years
>> ago and found that every operating system I investigated had some way
>> of passing a file descriptor from one process to another -- so a
>> shared connection cache might be possible.
>
> It sounds good idea.
>
>> Also, we might port the whole backend to use threads, and then this
>> problem goes way.  But I don't have time to write that patch this
>> week.  :-)
>>
>> It's possible that we might find that neither of the above approaches
>> are practical and that the performance benefits of resolving the
>> transaction from the original connection are large enough that we want
>> to try to make it work anyhow.  However, I think we can postpone that
>> work to a future time.  Any general solution to this problem at least
>> needs to be ABLE to resolve transactions at a later time from a
>> different session, so let's get that working first, and then see what
>> else we want to do.
>
> I understood and agreed. I'll post the first version patch of new
> design to next CF.

Closing this patch with Returned with feedback in this commitfest, looking
forward to a new version in an upcoming commitfest.

cheers ./daniel

--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Daniel Gustafsson
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] Hooks to track changed pages for backup purposes
Следующее
От: Daniel Gustafsson
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: [HACKERS] GSoC 2017: weekly progress reports (week 8)