| From: | Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Gianni Ciolli <gianni(dot)ciolli(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Autonomous subtransactions |
| Date: | 2012-01-21 22:58:28 |
| Message-ID: | 50020755-640C-4AA2-8168-00B9CACD7793@nasby.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Jan 4, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Gianni Ciolli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 04:58:08PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> Except AFAIR Oracle uses the term to indicate something that is
>> happening *outside* of your current transaction, which is definitely
>> not what the proposal is talking about.
>
> That feature is commonly translated in PostgreSQL to a dblink-based
> solution, which itself is not distant from the current proposal, at
> least in terms of inside/outside (the biggest difference I can see is
> on sharing temporary tables).
>
> But I am not sure I understand your remark; it would be clearer to me
> if you could provide an example explaining the difference.
As I understand your proposal, you are doing everything in a single backend and a single transaction... you're just providing a means to split one transaction into smaller pieces.
Is that not the case?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect jim(at)nasby(dot)net
512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2012-01-21 23:12:05 | Re: Page Checksums |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2012-01-21 22:54:07 | Re: Vacuum rate limit in KBps |