From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Portals and nested transactions |
Date: | 2004-07-14 19:11:54 |
Message-ID: | 8633.1089832314@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.
> So within this proposal, a query executed by normal means will get its
> resources saved in the transaction ResourceOwner?
No, *all* queries are executed within portals. The reason we need a
transaction ResourceOwner is because query parsing/planning happens in
advance of creating the portal, so we need someplace to keep track of
resources acquired during that process.
> How is the "unnamed portal" affected by it?
Same as the rest.
I don't recall whether SPI creates actual portals, but we'd definitely
want it to create a new ResourceOwner for queries it runs.
> On the other hand, some people supported the idea that v3 Bind portals
> should behave nontransactionally, while DECLARE portals should behave
> transactionally. Maybe we could make that a property of the portal, or
> even a user-selectable property (where we would define a reasonable
> default behavior).
This is certainly possible. Whether it's a good idea needs further
discussion...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2004-07-14 19:33:40 | Re: [HACKERS] Point in Time Recovery |
Previous Message | Andreas Pflug | 2004-07-14 19:10:09 | Re: serverlog rotation/functions |