| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, 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 23:26:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoY8NR_2XFfp0NFBf=TwF0A7QfUMegZeiV0Un8LE5H2TVw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 7:22 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> 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?
Personally, I don't see this patch set as having much to do with real
autonomous transactions.
> 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.
You *can* do that. I mean, long-running transactions will have their
usual problems, but if you want to kick off a long-running (or a
short-running query) in the background and forget about it, this patch
lets you do that.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2014-10-28 23:27:53 | Re: group locking: incomplete patch, just for discussion |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-10-28 23:25:35 | Re: WIP: Access method extendability |