| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> |
| Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
| Subject: | Re: PREPARE TRANSACTION and webapps |
| Date: | 2005-11-16 16:55:20 |
| Message-ID: | 7603.1132160120@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my> writes:
> At 11:27 PM 11/15/2005 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That said, it seems to me that the prepared-xacts infrastructure could
>> possibly support a separate "suspend transaction" and "resume
>> transaction" facility, if anyone wants to do the legwork to make it
>> happen. What this would actually be useful for is a fair question
>> though --- what's it do that you don't have now?
> MVCC-style transactions that are not limited by/to database connections.
> This could be useful if you want to have X pending database transactions
> and Y max concurrent database connections, where X is significantly greater
> than Y (magnitudes higher?).
I don't think the prepared-xacts facility has the performance that would
be needed to sustain that kind of usage. Suspend/resume would not be
all that cheap, and a suspended transaction would still hold a lot of
resources (locks mostly).
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-11-16 17:03:54 | Re: Wrong rows selected with view |
| Previous Message | pgsql-general@list.coretech.ro | 2005-11-16 16:52:25 | absolute or relative updates |