Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion

From: Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>
To: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion
Date: 2014-10-28 23:22:00
Message-ID: 54502518.8060401@BlueTreble.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10/28/14, 3:48 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Given your description of pg_background it looks an awful lot like
> infrastructure to make Autonomous Transactions work, but it doesn't
> even do that. I guess it could do in a very small additional patch, so
> maybe it is useful for something.

What do you see as being missing for autonomous transactios?

BTW, what I think would make this feature VERY useful is if it provided the ability to fire something up in another backend and leave it running in the background. I think you can do that with FDW, but then you have the authentication PITA to deal with (and perhaps pg_background is a more efficient way to move data between backends than FDW, but that's just a guess...)
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-10-28 23:24:06 Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion
Previous Message Jim Nasby 2014-10-28 23:07:25 Re: Trailing comma support in SELECT statements