Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP)

On 2014-04-08 15:39:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm also pretty unconvinced that multiple PGPROCs is the right way to
> go.  First, PGPROCs have a bunch of state in them that is assumed to
> exist once per backend.  We might find pretty substantial code churn
> there if we try to go change that.  Second, why do other backends
> really need to know about our ATs?  As far as I can see, if other
> backends see the AT as a subtransaction of our top-level transaction
> up until it actually commits, that ought to be just fine.  Maybe the
> backend needs to internally frob visibility rules, but that's not a
> matter for shared memory.

Agreed. That's also how I imagined things to work.

I think except the visibility semantics, there's really not that much to
do if we were to reuse the subtransaction framework. There's some
complications with Hot Standby, but I think those can be solved.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services