| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) |
| Date: | 2014-04-08 20:13:21 |
| Message-ID: | 26692.1396988001@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm also pretty unconvinced that multiple PGPROCs is the right way to
> go. First, PGPROCs have a bunch of state in them that is assumed to
> exist once per backend. We might find pretty substantial code churn
> there if we try to go change that. Second, why do other backends
> really need to know about our ATs? As far as I can see, if other
> backends see the AT as a subtransaction of our top-level transaction
> up until it actually commits, that ought to be just fine.
If we can make it work like that, sure. I'm a bit worried about how you'd
decouple a subtransaction and commit it atomically ... or if that's not
atomic, will it create any problems? The point being that you need to
change both pg_subtrans and pg_clog to make that state transition.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2014-04-08 20:19:30 | Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-08 20:02:48 | Re: GiST support for inet datatypes |