From: | Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: autonomous transactions |
Date: | 2016-10-11 15:06:38 |
Message-ID: | cb5eaddf-29f1-51ca-1c01-2bc4e57a585a@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/10/16 16:44, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 6 October 2016 at 21:27, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I think we should implement background transactions and call them
>>> background transactions. That allows us to expose additional
>>> functionality which is useful, like the ability to kick something off
>>> and check back later for the results. There's no reason to call it
>>> background transactions and also call it autonomous transactions: one
>>> feature doesn't need two names.
>>
>> I'm happy to also invoke it via an alternate mechanism or API, so that
>> it can continue to be used even if the above mechanism changes.
>>
>> We have no need to wait for the perfect solution, even assuming we
>> would ever agree that just one exists.
>
> -1 on implementing both autonomous and background transactions. This
> will confuse everyone.
>
I personally care much more about having background transactions than
autonomous ones (as I only ever had use-cases for the background ones)
so don't agree there.
--
Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-10-11 15:21:21 | Re: autonomous transactions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-11 12:40:41 | Re: int2vector and btree indexes |