Re: subtransactions and FETCH behaviour (was Re: PREPARE and transactions)

From: "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at>
To: "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, "Oliver Jowett" <oliver(at)opencloud(dot)com>
Cc: "Jeroen T(dot) Vermeulen" <jtv(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: subtransactions and FETCH behaviour (was Re: PREPARE and transactions)
Date: 2004-07-06 08:11:03
Message-ID: 46C15C39FEB2C44BA555E356FBCD6FA40184D12E@m0114.s-mxs.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


> Well, the proposal of implementing it like holdable cursors means using
> a Materialize node which, if I understand correctly, means taking the
> whole result set and storing it on memory (or disk).

Would it help to hold the lock for a record that is the current cursor position,
iff this record was updated (and subsequently rolled back) by this subtxn,
and release that lock as soon as you fetch next ?

Andreas

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andreas Pflug 2004-07-06 08:42:21 Re: Bug with view definitions?
Previous Message Andreas Pflug 2004-07-06 07:51:01 Re: Bug with view definitions?