| From: | Gianni Ciolli <gianni(dot)ciolli(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autonomous subtransactions |
| Date: | 2012-01-04 23:59:47 |
| Message-ID: | 20120104235947.GA14382@leggeri.gi.lan |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 04:58:08PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
> Except AFAIR Oracle uses the term to indicate something that is
> happening *outside* of your current transaction, which is definitely
> not what the proposal is talking about.
That feature is commonly translated in PostgreSQL to a dblink-based
solution, which itself is not distant from the current proposal, at
least in terms of inside/outside (the biggest difference I can see is
on sharing temporary tables).
But I am not sure I understand your remark; it would be clearer to me
if you could provide an example explaining the difference.
Dr. Gianni Ciolli - 2ndQuadrant Italia
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
gianni(dot)ciolli(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it | www.2ndquadrant.it
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-01-05 00:15:25 | Re: pg_restore direct to database is broken for --insert dumps |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2012-01-04 23:59:17 | Re: pg_restore direct to database is broken for --insert dumps |