Re: Autonomous Transaction is back

From: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Autonomous Transaction is back
Date: 2015-09-11 01:39:50
Message-ID: 20150911013950.GB3222614@tornado.leadboat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:04:01AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > What design principle(s) have you been using to decide how autonomous
> > transactions should behave?
>
> I have to admit to a complete lack of principle. I'm quite frightened
> of what this is going to need from the lock manager, and I'm trying to
> wriggle out of having to do things there that are going to be nastily
> hard. My wriggling isn't going very well, though.

It's an exceptionally-challenging development project, agreed. So much code
assumes the 1:1 relationship between backends and top-level transactions.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Takashi Horikawa 2015-09-11 01:44:12 Re: Partitioned checkpointing
Previous Message Takashi Horikawa 2015-09-11 01:37:19 Re: Partitioned checkpointing