On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié sep 15 14:57:29 -0400 2010:
>
>> I guess so, but the devil is in the details. I suspect that we don't
>> actually want to fork a new backend for every autonomous transactions.
>> That would be pre
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of mié sep 15 14:57:29 -0400 2010:
> I guess so, but the devil is in the details. I suspect that we don't
> actually want to fork a new backend for every autonomous transactions.
> That would be pretty expensive, and we already have an expensive way
> of emula
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
The point being, the answer to how to implement autonomous transactions
could be as simple as, do the same thing as how you manage multiple
concurrent client sessions, more or less. If each client gets its own
Postgres OS
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> The point being, the answer to how to implement autonomous transactions
> could be as simple as, do the same thing as how you manage multiple
> concurrent client sessions, more or less. If each client gets its own
> Postgres OS process, then
Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:37 AM, Colin 't Hart wrote:
I note that the implementation of tab completion for SET TRANSACTION in PSQL
could benefit from the implementation of autonomous transactions (also
TODO).
I think it's safe to say that if we ever manage to get autonomous
