| From: | Marti Raudsepp <marti(at)juffo(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Gianni Ciolli <gianni(dot)ciolli(at)2ndquadrant(dot)it>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Autonomous subtransactions |
| Date: | 2011-12-19 19:50:22 |
| Message-ID: | CABRT9RCyjb5qna2evZKZfepi+=JG1pgdSO=vd28FezAwzFEGEA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 21:43, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>> (I do realize that allowing subtransactions to commit out of order
>> also makes it failure prone)
>
> Uhm? You can't "commit" savepoints out of order. You can "release" an
> older one, but then all the ones following it disappear and can't be
> released separately.
We're confused about the terminology already :)
I was talking about "autonomous subtransactions" as in COMMIT
SUBTRANSACTION from the proposal. Earlier I commented that it would be
nice if the syntax didn't require autonomous transactions to be
strictly nested.
Regards,
Marti
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2011-12-19 20:12:43 | Re: RangeVarGetRelid() |
| Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2011-12-19 19:44:43 | Re: Page Checksums |