From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Кириллов Вячеслав <vkirillov(at)diasoft(dot)ru> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Question about VACUUM behavior with sub-transactions in stored procedures |
Date: | 2024-10-21 13:55:13 |
Message-ID: | CAKFQuwabMFmHtNicAi1QUJB+Q6PZn1twh2zfwqFX1_81moMXQw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Monday, October 21, 2024, Кириллов Вячеслав <vkirillov(at)diasoft(dot)ru> wrote:
> I have a question regarding the behavior of the auto VACUUM in PostgreSQL
> in the context of using stored procedures with sub-transactions.
>
>
This is a general usage inquiry not suited to discussion on -hackers. We
have a -general mailing list to discuss how to use the product. This list
is for discussing patches.
> Here is the scenario: we have several stored procedures that modify or
> update table data. These procedures use sub-transactions, which are
> committed via COMMIT.
>
>
This isn’t how sub-transactions work. They are created mainly by save
points and are not independently committed (by the user in SQL). What you
are using are full transactions.
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/17/plpgsql-transactions.html
David J.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2024-10-21 14:11:44 | Re: [PATCH] Add array_reverse() function |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2024-10-21 12:39:39 | Re: Change COPY ... ON_ERROR ignore to ON_ERROR ignore_row |