Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: autonomous transactions

From: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(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 08:26:52
Message-ID: 1201076812.6730.6.camel@goldbach (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 20:53 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> And there is most important question about data visibility - is
> autonomous transaction independent on main transaction (isolation)?

>From looking at how Oracle does them, autonomous transactions are
completely independent of the transaction that originates them -- they
take a new database snapshot. This means that uncommitted changes in the
originating transaction are not visible to the autonomous transaction.

On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 08:13 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Yes, I think autonomous transactions should be on the TODO. They're
> useful for
> - error logging
> - auditing
> - creating new partitions automatically

I think they would also be useful to implement procedures that perform
DDL operations or COMMITs / ROLLBACKs.

-Neil



In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Pavel StehuleDate: 2008-01-23 09:05:50
Subject: Re: autonomous transactions
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2008-01-23 08:13:55
Subject: Re: autonomous transactions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group