| From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jessica Perry Hekman <jphekman(at)dynamicdiagrams(dot)com>, Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>, Jan Wieck <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Date: | 2002-04-07 02:15:50 |
| Message-ID: | 200204070215.g372FoE02845@candle.pha.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > We do have on_shmem_exit and on_proc_exit function call queues. Seems
> > we will need SET to create a queue of function calls containing previous
> > values of variables SEt in multi-statement transactions. If we execute
> > the queue in last-in-first-out order, the variables will be restored
> > properly.
>
> That's most certainly the hard way. I was planning to just make GUC
> save a spare copy of the start-of-transaction value of each variable.
Ewe, I was hoping for something with zero overhead for the non-SET case.
Can we trigger the save for the first SET in the transaction?
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-07 02:20:39 | Re: timeout implementation issues |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-07 02:14:36 | Re: timeout implementation issues |