Joe Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> [ Joe, would you review this? ]
>> Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
>> It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
>> and approves it.
> The patch itself is pretty simple, but I'm unclear on the use case.
> Jonathan, can you elaborate a bit?
> p.s. I'm on a business trip in Asia again, so my responses may be
> delayed a bit.
We are using the dblink module on Sensor servers to provide
summarization services to a Central server. Sensors are in the business
of populating certain Postgres databases, and the Central is in the
business of populating a summary Postgres database. The issue in our
situation is that the Central server does an explicit BEGIN transaction
some time before it calls the dblink_open() routine. On the Sensors, we
were getting many "there is already a transaction in progress" warnings,
and overflowing our log storage. Is this patch the right way to go
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Gnanavel S||Date: 2005-09-27 13:46:09|
|Subject: Re: PostgreSQL overall design|
|Previous:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-09-27 13:32:16|
|Subject: Re: Open items list for 8.1|
pgsql-patches by date
|Next:||From: Bruce Momjian||Date: 2005-09-27 16:32:14|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] \x output blowing up|
|Previous:||From: David Fetter||Date: 2005-09-27 06:26:46|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] statement logging / extended query protocol|