Re: Named transaction

On 06/18/2009 02:42 AM, Pavel Golub wrote:
> Now to implement customer's desire in PostgreSQL there are two ways:
>
> 1. Each script must be executed in the separate connection context
>
> 2. Each script must be executed inside critical section, in other
> words current scipt must block others until COMMIT or ROLLBACK
>
> I don't like both.
>

What don't you like about 1) ?

I don't know of any other databases that work this way. Using separate
connections and connection pooling seems to be "the way to go" here.

Personally, I found the "named transaction" concept a little skrewy unless:

1) SQL commands can be sent asynchronously as long as they are for
different named transactions, even while other transactions are still
running.
2) Each transaction runs in a different server-side thread.

If this is what you want, it sounds like you are just trying to
multiplex multiple queries and responses over the same TCP/IP
connection. For the added complexity on both the client and the server,
do you really think it is worth it?

If you just want a connection multiplexor that is backed by a connection
pool - I think that would be a lot easier to provide. :-)

Cheers,
mark

--
Mark Mielke<mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>