| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joel Jacobson <joel(at)trustly(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autonomous transactions |
| Date: | 2016-09-01 18:38:49 |
| Message-ID: | 20160901183849.swue2x2ov6qgyyvt@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-08-31 06:10:31 +0200, Joel Jacobson wrote:
> This is important if you as a caller function want to be sure none of
> the work made by anything called down the stack gets committed.
> That is, if you as a caller decide to rollback, e.g. by raising an
> exception, and you want to be sure *everything* gets rollbacked,
> including all work by functions you've called.
> If the caller can't control this, then the author of the caller
> function would need to inspect the source code of all function being
> called, to be sure there are no code using autonomous transactions.
I'm not convinced this makes much sense. All FDWs, dblink etc. already
allow you do stuff outside of a transaction.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-09-01 18:43:03 | Re: \timing interval |
| Previous Message | Corey Huinker | 2016-09-01 18:38:17 | Re: \timing interval |