From: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bob(dot)Henkel(at)hartfordlife(dot)com |
Subject: | Re: Socket communication for contrib |
Date: | 2004-04-05 15:59:41 |
Message-ID: | 4071826D.3010308@cybertec.at |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> =?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.
this should not be a problem.
I can intregrate all necessary information there.
folks, let's do a poll ...
who is for it - who is against it ...
regards,
Hans
--
Cybertec Geschwinde u Schoenig
Schoengrabern 134, A-2020 Hollabrunn, Austria
Tel: +43/2952/30706 or +43/664/233 90 75
www.cybertec.at, www.postgresql.at, kernel.cybertec.at
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bob.Henkel | 2004-04-05 16:00:56 | Re: Socket communication for contrib |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-04-05 15:50:56 | Re: Socket communication for contrib |