Added to TODO, just so we don't forget later:
* Use a phantom command counter for nested subtransactions to reduce
tuple overhead
---
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hmm .
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm ... yes, this could be very ugly indeed, but I haven't even looked
> at the executor code so I can't comment. Are executor nodes copyable?
Nope, and even if we had support for that the executor tree per se
is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a
On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 06:59:20PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > As with the bufmgr.c original patch, I don't really know how to test
> > that this actually works. [...]
>
> I forgot to mention to you that that code didn't work at all, btw.
Bad news, I g
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As with the bufmgr.c original patch, I don't really know how to test
> that this actually works. I fooled around with printing what it was
> doing during a subtrans commit/abort, and it seems OK, but that's about
> it. In what situations can a transact
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It has been suggested a couple of times that we should use a different
> syntax for subtransactions than for main transactions. This would for
> example allow things like
>
>
> BEGIN;
> do something;
> SUBBEGIN;
It might be awkward for
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> (This is suspiciously similar to SAVEPOINTs). Another nice idea would
> be to be able to name subtransactions and rollback to a name, which
> would bring savepoints even nearer.
Sounds exactly like savepoints. What is the difference and why don't we d
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:42:28AM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> - discussion whether we want a different syntax for subxacts, like
> SUBBEGIN/SUBCOMMIT/SUBABORT instead of BEGIN/COMMIT/ABORT. Please
> comment on this point.
It has been suggested a couple of times that we should use a diffe
