| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gianni Ciolli <gianni(dot)ciolli(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Autonomous subtransactions |
| Date: | 2011-12-19 20:14:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1324324883-sup-6073@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Marti Raudsepp's message of lun dic 19 16:50:22 -0300 2011:
>
> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 21:43, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> >> (I do realize that allowing subtransactions to commit out of order
> >> also makes it failure prone)
> >
> > Uhm? You can't "commit" savepoints out of order. You can "release" an
> > older one, but then all the ones following it disappear and can't be
> > released separately.
>
> We're confused about the terminology already :)
Yeah. The code talks about savepoints as "subtransactions" (because
that's the name they had at first), so if you guys are going to talk
about autonomous transactions as "subtransactions" too, then the code is
going to end up pretty schizo.
> I was talking about "autonomous subtransactions" as in COMMIT
> SUBTRANSACTION from the proposal. Earlier I commented that it would be
> nice if the syntax didn't require autonomous transactions to be
> strictly nested.
Oh ... Probably.
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2011-12-19 20:18:02 | Re: Page Checksums |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2011-12-19 20:12:46 | Re: Page Checksums |