From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | pg1(at)thetdh(dot)com |
Cc: | " Loïc Vaumerel" <shefla(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Autonomous transaction |
Date: | 2010-04-14 00:01:10 |
Message-ID: | 201004140001.o3E01A323534@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
pg(at)thetdh(dot)com wrote:
> It would be useful to have a relation such that all dirtied
> buffers got written out even for failed transactions (barring
> a crash) and such that read-any-undeleted were easy to do,
> despite the non-ACIDity. The overhead of a side transaction
> seems overkill for such things as logs or advisory relations,
> and non-DB files would be harder to tie in efficiently to DB
> activity. A side transaction would still have to be committed
> in order to be useful; either you're committing frequently
> (ouch!), or you risk failing to commit just as you would the
> main transaction.
Yea, having some things in our system be non-transactional is odd and
hard to understand. Just thinking about it, it seems it would introduce
all sorts of odd behaviors.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-04-14 00:14:30 | Re: Nice hint on table aliasing! |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-04-13 22:00:20 | Re: How to generate specific WAL records? |