> I think the primary argument *against* Accord is that the syntax isn't
> expressive enough to be able to address multiple conditions in MVs. For each
> field that's updated, you'll need to know if you want to add that update into
> the transaction, and you'd need to check if it was modified.
> Yes, you need to read the original row before the transaction begins in order
> to get the initial state, but could be done at local one by the coordinator,
> reading itself. The performance overhead of an additional, local one read
> should be significantly less than a Paxos transaction that
Glad to see folks are looking to improve MVs. Definitely one of the areas
we need some attention paid to.
Do you have a patch already for this? We haven't had a discussion yet
about winding down new development in trunk but IMO we should probably stop
merging big things in soon and focus on gett
After thinking about it, if you want to use accord for synchronization in
the future, you need to modify the base table attribute "
transactional_mode = 'full' ".
If the user's base table does not want to use accord, do you plan to force
the modification of this attribute?
Runtian Liu 于2025年5月7日周
