From: | Jonathan Beit-Aharon <jbeitaharon(at)intrusic(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patching dblink.c to avoid warning about open transaction |
Date: | 2005-09-27 13:35:04 |
Message-ID: | 43394A88.2020902@intrusic.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Joe Conway wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> [ Joe, would you review this? ]
>>
>> Your patch has been added to the PostgreSQL unapplied patches list at:
>>
>> http://momjian.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/pgpatches
>>
>> It will be applied as soon as one of the PostgreSQL committers reviews
>> and approves it.
>
>
> The patch itself is pretty simple, but I'm unclear on the use case.
> Jonathan, can you elaborate a bit?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joe
>
> p.s. I'm on a business trip in Asia again, so my responses may be
> delayed a bit.
Hi Joe,
We are using the dblink module on Sensor servers to provide
summarization services to a Central server. Sensors are in the business
of populating certain Postgres databases, and the Central is in the
business of populating a summary Postgres database. The issue in our
situation is that the Central server does an explicit BEGIN transaction
some time before it calls the dblink_open() routine. On the Sensors, we
were getting many "there is already a transaction in progress" warnings,
and overflowing our log storage. Is this patch the right way to go
about this?
Thanks,
Jonathan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gnanavel S | 2005-09-27 13:46:09 | Re: PostgreSQL overall design |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-09-27 13:32:16 | Re: Open items list for 8.1 |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-09-27 16:32:14 | Re: [HACKERS] \x output blowing up |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2005-09-27 06:26:46 | Re: [HACKERS] statement logging / extended query protocol |