| From: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Autonomous Transaction is back |
| Date: | 2015-09-11 01:39:50 |
| Message-ID: | 20150911013950.GB3222614@tornado.leadboat.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:04:01AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> wrote:
> > What design principle(s) have you been using to decide how autonomous
> > transactions should behave?
>
> I have to admit to a complete lack of principle. I'm quite frightened
> of what this is going to need from the lock manager, and I'm trying to
> wriggle out of having to do things there that are going to be nastily
> hard. My wriggling isn't going very well, though.
It's an exceptionally-challenging development project, agreed. So much code
assumes the 1:1 relationship between backends and top-level transactions.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Takashi Horikawa | 2015-09-11 01:44:12 | Re: Partitioned checkpointing |
| Previous Message | Takashi Horikawa | 2015-09-11 01:37:19 | Re: Partitioned checkpointing |