Re: Socket communication for contrib

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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