Re: Autonomous subtransactions

On Jan 4, 2012, at 5:59 PM, Gianni Ciolli wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 04:58:08PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote:
>> Except AFAIR Oracle uses the term to indicate something that is
>> happening *outside* of your current transaction, which is definitely
>> not what the proposal is talking about.
>
> That feature is commonly translated in PostgreSQL to a dblink-based
> solution, which itself is not distant from the current proposal, at
> least in terms of inside/outside (the biggest difference I can see is
> on sharing temporary tables).
>
> But I am not sure I understand your remark; it would be clearer to me
> if you could provide an example explaining the difference.

As I understand your proposal, you are doing everything in a single backend and a single transaction... you're just
providinga means to split one transaction into smaller pieces. 

Is that not the case?
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect                   jim@nasby.net
512.569.9461 (cell)                         http://jim.nasby.net