| 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: | 26766.1201128602@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gokulakannan Somasundaram | 2008-01-24 03:06:56 | Re: autonomous transactions |
| Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2008-01-23 22:35:32 | Re: autonomous transactions |