Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: autonomous transactions

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(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: 2008-01-23 22:50:02
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> From looking at how Oracle does them, autonomous transactions are
>> completely independent of the transaction that originates them -- they
>> take a new database snapshot. This means that uncommitted changes in the
>> originating transaction are not visible to the autonomous transaction.

> Oh! Recursion depth would need to be tested for as well. Nasty.

Seems like the cloning-a-session idea would be a possible implementation
path for these too.

			regards, tom lane

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gokulakannan SomasundaramDate: 2008-01-24 03:06:56
Subject: Re: autonomous transactions
Previous:From: Neil ConwayDate: 2008-01-23 22:35:32
Subject: Re: autonomous transactions

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group