| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bob(dot)Henkel(at)hartfordlife(dot)com |
| Subject: | Re: Socket communication for contrib |
| Date: | 2004-04-05 15:50:56 |
| Message-ID: | 12073.1081180256@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hans-J=FCrgen_Sch=F6nig?= <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> writes:
> Nested transactions: I don't think nested transactions will really help
> to resolve the core problem. Committing a subtransaction will most
> likely not imply that a parent transaction can be committed as well.
Agreed.
> As I said: Some people MIGHT find it useful in some special cases.
> If the community decides that it does not enough sense to integrate it
> into contrib I can live with that.
I won't take a position on whether it's useful enough to put in contrib,
but if people want it there, I'd just ask that the README be extended to
point out the transactional risks.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2004-04-05 15:59:41 | Re: Socket communication for contrib |
| Previous Message | Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2004-04-05 15:36:15 | Re: Socket communication for contrib |