| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, 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 19:09:13 |
| Message-ID: | 603c8f070906171209o4f773addkb5be7060ea7980a@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Greg Stark<stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> 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.
At the risk of veering off-topic, wouldn't this present some awfully
nasty issues vis-a-vis the command counter?
...Robert
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-06-17 19:11:03 | Re: Named transaction |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2009-06-17 19:04:16 | Re: Named transaction |