From: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.saw...@2ndquadrant.com> > To avoid misunderstanding, I didn't mean to disregard the performance. > I mean especially for the transaction management feature it's > essential to work fine even in failure cases. So I hope we have a > safe, robust, and probably simple design for the first version that > might be low performance yet though but have a potential for > performance improvement and we will be able to try to improve > performance later.
Yes, correctness (safety?) is a basic premise. I understand that given the time left for PG 14, we haven't yet given up a sound design that offers practical or normally expected performance. I don't think the design has not well thought yet to see if it's simple or complex. At least, I don't believe doing "send commit request, perform commit on a remote server, and wait for reply" sequence one transaction at a time in turn is what this community (and other DBMSs) tolerate. A kid's tricycle is safe, but it's not safe to ride a tricycle on the road. Let's not rush to commit and do our best! Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
