From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) |
Date: | 2014-04-08 19:46:13 |
Message-ID: | 20140408194613.GX4161@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-04-08 15:39:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm also pretty unconvinced that multiple PGPROCs is the right way to
> go. First, PGPROCs have a bunch of state in them that is assumed to
> exist once per backend. We might find pretty substantial code churn
> there if we try to go change that. Second, why do other backends
> really need to know about our ATs? As far as I can see, if other
> backends see the AT as a subtransaction of our top-level transaction
> up until it actually commits, that ought to be just fine. Maybe the
> backend needs to internally frob visibility rules, but that's not a
> matter for shared memory.
Agreed. That's also how I imagined things to work.
I think except the visibility semantics, there's really not that much to
do if we were to reuse the subtransaction framework. There's some
complications with Hot Standby, but I think those can be solved.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-08 19:51:54 | Re: GiST support for inet datatypes |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-04-08 19:39:18 | Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) |