[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alvaro Herrera) writes:
> Chris Browne wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Jim C. Nasby") writes:
>>
>> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:23:55AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> >> Tom Lane wrote:
>> >> > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >> > > AFAIK they're not using subtran
Chris Browne wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Jim C. Nasby") writes:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:23:55AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Tom Lane wrote:
> >> > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > > AFAIK they're not using subtransactions at all, but I'll check.
> >> >
> >> > Well
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Jim C. Nasby") writes:
> AFAIK they're not using subtransactions at all, but I'll check.
Are they perchance using pl/PerlNG?
We discovered a problem with Slony-I's handling of subtransactions
which was exposed by pl/PerlNG, which evidently wraps its SPI calls
inside subtransac
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Jim C. Nasby") writes:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:23:55AM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>> > "Jim C. Nasby" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > > AFAIK they're not using subtransactions at all, but I'll check.
>> >
>> > Well, yeah, they are ... else you'd neve
