| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Autonomous Transaction is back |
| Date: | 2015-09-11 19:30:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0xashB_MGxNPBLv70BsP-Rvniq8afJ9DhFNw-=p_4DxJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:04:01AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
>> > What design principle(s) have you been using to decide how autonomous
>> > transactions should behave?
>>
>> I have to admit to a complete lack of principle. I'm quite frightened
>> of what this is going to need from the lock manager, and I'm trying to
>> wriggle out of having to do things there that are going to be nastily
>> hard. My wriggling isn't going very well, though.
>
> It's an exceptionally-challenging development project, agreed. So much code
> assumes the 1:1 relationship between backends and top-level transactions.
I guess I'm being obtuse, but can you explain why that assumption must
be revisited? I don't see why it has to be...I must be missing
something.
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2015-09-11 19:36:37 | Re: RLS open items are vague and unactionable |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-09-11 19:26:31 | Re: Comment update to pathnode.c |