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

Re: [PATCHES] nested xacts and phantom Xids

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>
Cc: Patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] nested xacts and phantom Xids
Date: 2004-06-30 02:32:07
Message-ID: 2704.1088562727@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> Hmm ... yes, this could be very ugly indeed, but I haven't even looked
> at the executor code so I can't comment.  Are executor nodes copyable?

Nope, and even if we had support for that the executor tree per se
is just the tip of the iceberg.  There's also indexscan status, SRF
function internal state, yadda yadda.  I think the odds of doing
something with all that stuff for 7.5 are exactly zero ... we'd better
define a stopgap behavior.

> Oh, and I've been playing with large objects and I've encountered bugs
> elsewhere.  I'll look at it with the new patch you just posted.

Wouldn't surprise me, we've not looked at that yet either.

I do feel that we have enough things working that we should commit to
nested transactions for 7.5.  There will be some things that we have to
restrict, such as cursors and perhaps large objects.  But it's surely
better than no subtransactions at all.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2004-06-30 03:19:51
Subject: Re: lock timeout patch
Previous:From: 周仁军Date: 2004-06-30 02:05:15
Subject: unsubscribe-digest

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: ohpDate: 2004-06-30 11:27:21
Subject: Re: PITR Archive Recovery
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2004-06-30 01:46:57
Subject: Re: PITR Archive Recovery

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