On 2015-09-02 PM 01:28, Amit Kapila wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 9:48 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not averse to making the "connect to the remote nodes" part of >>> this solution use something other than the FDW infrastructure at some >>> point in time if somebody's prepared to build something better. On >>> the other hand, I think it's extremely clear that the FDW >>> infrastructure has a large amount of potential upon which we have >>> thoroughly failed to capitalize. Patches have already been written >>> for UPDATE/DELETE pushdown and for join pushdown. > > Will pushing down writes (Update/Delete) sufficient to maintain sane locking > behaviour and deadlock detection that can occur during writes on multiple > shards? For example it could easily be the case where a single Update > statement could effect multiple shards and cause deadlock due to waits > across the nodes. Now unless we have some distributed lock manager or > some other way to know the information of locks that happens across > shards, it could be difficult to detect deadlocks. >
I wonder if Ashutosh's atomic foreign transactions patch would address any issues inherent in such cases... Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
