| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Roberts, Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autonomous transactions |
| Date: | 2008-01-23 08:13:55 |
| Message-ID: | 1201076035.4257.7.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 20:53 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> >
> > Agreed. I think Pavel Stehule was doing some experiments with them, I
> > don't know if he got anywhere.
> >
>
> I did only first research. Any hack is possible - you can stack
> current transaction, but real implementation needs similar work like
> nested transaction :( and it is too low level for me. And some code
> cleaning is necessary. There are global variables.
>
> And there is most important question about data visibility - is
> autonomous transaction independent on main transaction (isolation)?
> You have to thing about deadlock, about reference integrity, etc. This
> task isn't simple.
Yes, I think autonomous transactions should be on the TODO. They're
useful for
- error logging
- auditing
- creating new partitions automatically
Plus I think we'd be able to improve the code for CREATE INDEX under
HOT, and probably a few other wrinkly bits of code.
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2008-01-23 08:26:52 | Re: autonomous transactions |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Smet | 2008-01-22 22:37:39 | Re: Suboptimal plan choice problem with 8.3RC2 |