From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Roberts, Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: autonomous transactions |
Date: | 2008-01-23 08:26:52 |
Message-ID: | 1201076812.6730.6.camel@goldbach |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 20:53 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> And there is most important question about data visibility - is
> autonomous transaction independent on main transaction (isolation)?
>From looking at how Oracle does them, autonomous transactions are
completely independent of the transaction that originates them -- they
take a new database snapshot. This means that uncommitted changes in the
originating transaction are not visible to the autonomous transaction.
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 08:13 +0000, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Yes, I think autonomous transactions should be on the TODO. They're
> useful for
> - error logging
> - auditing
> - creating new partitions automatically
I think they would also be useful to implement procedures that perform
DDL operations or COMMITs / ROLLBACKs.
-Neil
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2008-01-23 09:05:50 | Re: autonomous transactions |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-01-23 08:13:55 | Re: autonomous transactions |