| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Rajeev rastogi <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) |
| Date: | 2014-04-09 16:20:53 |
| Message-ID: | 31328.1397060453@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Rajeev rastogi
> <rajeev(dot)rastogi(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
>> Now when we grant the lock to particular transaction, depending on type of transaction, bit
>> Mask will be set for either holdMaskByAutoTx or holdMaskByNormalTx.
>> Similar when lock is ungranted, corresponding bitmask will be reset.
> That sounds pretty ugly, not to mention the fact that it will cause a
> substantial increase in the amount of memory required to store
> PROCLOCKs. It will probably slow things down, too.
More to the point, why isn't it a flat-out bad idea? I can see no
justification for distinguishing normal and autonomous transactions
at this level.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emre Hasegeli | 2014-04-09 16:43:23 | Re: GiST support for inet datatypes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-09 16:18:51 | Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation |