| From: | "Pavel Stehule" <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Neil Conway" <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, "Roberts, Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: autonomous transactions |
| Date: | 2008-01-22 19:53:59 |
| Message-ID: | 162867790801221153s53decf5fpcbca76c4c7d1017d@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> Agreed. I think Pavel Stehule was doing some experiments with them, I
> don't know if he got anywhere.
>
I did only first research. Any hack is possible - you can stack
current transaction, but real implementation needs similar work like
nested transaction :( and it is too low level for me. And some code
cleaning is necessary. There are global variables.
And there is most important question about data visibility - is
autonomous transaction independent on main transaction (isolation)?
You have to thing about deadlock, about reference integrity, etc. This
task isn't simple.
Pavel
> --
> Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
> PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Warren Turkal | 2008-01-22 20:50:13 | [PATCH] Add TimeOffset and DateOffset typedefs |
| Previous Message | Guillaume Smet | 2008-01-22 19:48:49 | Re: Suboptimal plan choice problem with 8.3RC2 |