On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > It's not cheap :-( ... but it's *necessary*. There's no other way to > get sane behavior. > > If the cost annoys you, you should put some effort into making subxact > start/stop cheaper overall, rather than trying to avoid having one here.
I would be pretty happy even if only the *first* subxact was cheap. That would take care of 99% of use implicit use cases leaving mostly only cases where users have explicitly asked for a subxact with a catch/throw block. In particular it would cover the psql case of wanting to have a subxact around every interactive command so the user can hit C-c without undoing their whole transaction. -- greg -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
