On 2017-02-03 19:09:43 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:08 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > On 2017-02-03 18:47:23 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> > I still haven't seen a credible model for being able to apply a stream > >> > of interleaved transactions that can roll back individually; I think we > >> > really need the ability to have multiple transactions alive in one > >> > backend for that. > >> > >> Hmm, yeah, that's a problem. That smells like autonomous transactions. > > > > Unfortunately the last few proposals, like spawning backends, to deal > > with autonomous xacts aren't really suitable for replication, unless you > > only have very large ones. And it really needs to be an implementation > > where ATs can freely be switched inbetween. On the other hand, a good > > deal of problems (like locking) shouldn't be an issue, since there's > > obviously a possible execution schedule. > > > > I suspect this'd need some low-level implemention close to xact.c that'd > > allow switching between transactions. > > Yeah. Well, I still feel like that's also how autonomous transactions > oughta work, but I realize that's not a unanimous viewpoint. :-)
Same here ;) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
