| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Dave Cramer <Dave(at)micro-automation(dot)net>, Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: cursors outside transactions |
| Date: | 2003-03-20 03:38:13 |
| Message-ID: | 19750.1048131493@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> AccessShare table locks are only needed.
>> What is wrong with it ?
> But that is going to block VACUUM, right?
No. It's a matter of bookkeeping more than anything else. Right now,
transaction end releases all the locks a backend holds. You'd need to
figure out which locks are associated with cross-transaction cursors
and keep those. This overlaps to some extent with bookkeeping that we'd
need to add for nested transactions --- but we haven't got a plan for
that, either.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hiroshi Inoue | 2003-03-20 03:38:21 | Re: A bad behavior under autocommit off mode |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-03-20 03:35:30 | Re: Nested transactions: low level stuff |