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.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers