| From: | Steve Singer <ssinger_pg(at)sympatico(dot)ca> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Urbański <wulczer(at)wulczer(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Postgres - Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: pl/python explicit subtransactions |
| Date: | 2011-02-11 16:22:17 |
| Message-ID: | BLU0-SMTP362C130786A9B27E088BC78EEF0@phx.gbl |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11-02-10 05:20 AM, Jan Urbański wrote:
>
> D'oh, I was thinking about whether it's safe to skip the internal
> subxact if you're in an implicit one and somehow I always convinced
> myself that since you eventually close the explicit one, it is.
>
> Obviously my testing wasn't enough :( Attaching an updated patch with
> improved docs incorporating Steve's fixes, and fixes& tests for not
> statring the implicit subxact. That actually makes the patch a bit
> smaller ;) OTOH I had to remove the section from the docs that claimed
> performance improvement due to only starting the explicit subxact...
>
This version of the patch looks fine to me and seems to work as expected.
> Cheers,
> Jan
>
>
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-02-11 16:22:24 | Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3 |
| Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2011-02-11 16:17:35 | Re: multiset patch review |