| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Roberts, Jon" <Jon(dot)Roberts(at)asurion(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: autonomous transactions |
| Date: | 2008-01-23 22:35:32 |
| Message-ID: | 1201127732.15243.10.camel@dell.linuxdev.us.dell.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2008-01-23 at 09:30 +0000, Gregory Stark wrote:
> I think the hard part would be error handling. You have to be able to catch
> any errors and resume the outer transaction.
I agree that you'd need to do this, but I don't follow why it would be
particularly difficult. You essentially have a stack of active
transactions (since one autonomous transaction can start another
autonomous transaction, and so forth). If you encounter an error in the
current transaction, you abort it as normal, pop the stack, and resume
execution of the originating transaction.
I think the hard part is fixing the parts of the backend that assume
that a single process can only have a single top-level transaction in
progress at a given time.
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2008-01-23 22:50:02 | Re: autonomous transactions |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-01-23 21:32:59 | Re: autonomous transactions |