| From: | "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-general general <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: why postgresql over other RDBMS |
| Date: | 2007-05-25 01:40:45 |
| Message-ID: | 8477BABF-EE9C-41D5-A36A-B29A8F349FC3@themactionfaction.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On May 24, 2007, at 20:39 , Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 03:25:52PM -0400, A.M. wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be a cool feature to persists transaction states
>> across connections so that a new connection could get access to a
>> sub-
>> transaction state?
>
> You could do this using an incredibly evil, carefully implemented
> hack in a connection pool. I'm shuddering at the thought of it, to
> be honest, so details are left as an exervisse for the reader.
Actually, a sample implementation could be done using stored
procedures and some IPC. It would however require that the receiver
poll for requests- the API would probably look very similar to dblink.
-M
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Walter Vaughan | 2007-05-25 02:02:31 | Cannot get autovacuum configured |
| Previous Message | Scott Ribe | 2007-05-25 01:15:49 | Uhm, so, yeah, speaking of /. |