| From: | "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Greg Stark" <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "David E(dot) Wheeler" <david(at)kineticode(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Pavel Golub" <pavel(at)gf(dot)microolap(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Named transaction |
| Date: | 2009-06-17 16:49:52 |
| Message-ID: | 4A38D8600200002500027CA3@gw.wicourts.gov |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Stark <greg(dot)stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Jun 17, 2009, at 8:08 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Pavel Golub <pavel(at)microolap(dot)com> writes:
>>>> Is there any possibility that Postgres will have named
>>>> transaction ever, like Firebird?
>>>
>>> What in heck is a named transaction, and why should we care?
> I'm curious what they ate too
I don't know about Firebird, but in Sybase the transaction name just
shows up in the process list, so you can tell what type of transaction
is running. It's a solution to the "what the heck is that idle
transaction from" -- as long as meaningful transaction names are
consistently used.
-Kevin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Petr Jelinek | 2009-06-17 16:52:37 | Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-06-17 16:45:48 | Re: GRANT ON ALL IN schema |