| From: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pavel Golub <pavel(at)gf(dot)microolap(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Named transaction |
| Date: | 2009-06-17 19:04:16 |
| Message-ID: | 4136ffa0906171204y532f4493v4c9648938e3e899c@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Alvaro
Herrera<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What in heck is a named transaction, and why should we care?
>>
>> Isn't this just another name for a subtransaction or inner transaction
>> that can be separately committed?
>
> AFAIK that's an "autonomous transaction", at least to some other RDBMSs.
I have no idea what they are in Firebird but the name conjured up a
different (interesting) idea for me. I had the image of naming a
transaction and then being able to have other sessions join that same
transaction. We've discussed this before for connection-pooled systems
which want to be able to return their connection to the pool in the
middle of their transaction. It would also possibly be useful for
parallel data dumps and loads.
--
Gregory Stark
http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2009-06-17 19:09:13 | Re: Named transaction |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2009-06-17 17:47:34 | Re: Named transaction |