| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: chained transactions |
| Date: | 2018-10-02 05:38:54 |
| Message-ID: | 20181002053854.GA11712@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 08:21:20PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Oh, is that all it does? That's disappointing, because that's a lot less
> powerful than how I understand chained transactions. And at the same time
> relieving, because that's a lot simpler to implement :-).
>
> In Gray & Reuter's classic book, Transaction Processing, they describe
> chained transactions so that you also keep locks and cursors. Unfortunately
> I don't have a copy at hand, but that's my recollection, at least. I guess
> the SQL standard committee had a different idea.
The patch set does not apply anymore, so this patch is moved to next CF,
waiting on author.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-10-02 05:43:12 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCH] WIP Add ALWAYS DEFERRED option for constraints |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-10-02 05:27:17 | Re: Allow to specify a index name as ANALYZE parameter |