On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 5:48 PM Masahiro Ikeda <ikeda...@oss.nttdata.com> wrote: > > > > On 2021/05/21 13:45, Masahiko Sawada wrote: > > > > Yes. We also might need to be careful about the order of foreign > > transaction resolution. I think we need to resolve foreign> transactions in > > arrival order at least within a foreign server. > > I agree it's better. > > (Although this is my interest...) > Is it necessary? Although this idea seems to be for atomic visibility, > 2PC can't realize that as you know. So, I wondered that.
I think it's for fairness. If a foreign transaction arrived earlier gets put off so often for other foreign transactions arrived later due to its index in FdwXactCtl->xacts, it’s not understandable for users and not fair. I think it’s better to handle foreign transactions in FIFO manner (although this problem exists even in the current code). Regards, -- Masahiko Sawada EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
