From: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Multiple Xids in PGPROC? |
Date: | 2004-05-05 04:49:10 |
Message-ID: | 874qqvxyux.fsf@stark.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > I hope not, because for many of us there will be as many (if not more)
> > subtransactions than standard transactions.
>
> How can that possibly be true? Every statement executed in postgres is a
> "transaction" how many subtransactions are really needed and how can they be
> as common as normal transactions?
Well consider that one thing discussed on this list previously was using
subtransactions to handle being able to continue after an error in a query.
Then any situation where autocommit was off would have every single query
being executed in a subtransaction within the main transaction. So a psql
script would likely be a single big transaction but every statement in it a
subtransaction. Or a web application could treat every page request as a
single atomic transaction but every individual query would automatically be a
subtransaction.
This would let a user C-c a large query and try a different way of writing it
without having to restart the whole sequence of commands in the transaction.
Or even simply correct a typo which is the big annoyance everyone's always
complaining about.
--
greg
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Christopher Kings-Lynne | 2004-05-05 05:27:09 | Re: pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml ... |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-05-05 04:48:48 | pgsql-server/ oc/src/sgml/ref/alter_table.sgml ... |