On 23/01/2008, Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2008-01-22 at 20:53 +0100, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > > > Agreed. I think Pavel Stehule was doing some experiments with them, I > > > don't know if he got anywhere. > > > > > > > I did only first research. Any hack is possible - you can stack > > current transaction, but real implementation needs similar work like > > nested transaction :( and it is too low level for me. And some code > > cleaning is necessary. There are global variables. > > > > And there is most important question about data visibility - is > > autonomous transaction independent on main transaction (isolation)? > > You have to thing about deadlock, about reference integrity, etc. This > > task isn't simple. > > Yes, I think autonomous transactions should be on the TODO. They're > useful for > - error logging > - auditing > - creating new partitions automatically >
I worked on workflow implementation only in stored procedures. Without autonomous transaction you cannot implement some models. And it's usable for AQ. > Plus I think we'd be able to improve the code for CREATE INDEX under > HOT, and probably a few other wrinkly bits of code. > > -- > Simon Riggs > 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
