From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Autonomous Transaction is back |
Date: | 2015-07-31 17:40:14 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa=fU9Pk0cr2f6FJzEEnEX8usttkfeJ7D=5RZW0ri+8ZQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> That should be practical to special-case by maintaining a list of
> parent transaction (virtual?) transaction IDs. Attempts to wait on a
> lock held by any of those should fail immediately. There's no point
> waiting for the deadlock detector since the outer tx can never
> progress and commit/rollback to release locks, and it might not be
> able to see the parent/child relationship from outside the backend
> doing the nested tx anyway.
I think we're going entirely down the wrong path here. Why is it ever
useful for a backend's lock requests to conflict with themselves, even
with autonomous transactions? That seems like an artifact of somebody
else's implementation that we should be happy we don't need to copy.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-07-31 17:43:45 | Re: patch: prevent user from setting wal_buffers over 2GB bytes |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-07-31 17:35:25 | Re: RequestAddinLWLocks(int n) |