Re: Portals and nested transactions
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Portals and nested transactions |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8633.1089832314@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Portals and nested transactions (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>) |
Ответы |
Re: Portals and nested transactions
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes: > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions. > So within this proposal, a query executed by normal means will get its > resources saved in the transaction ResourceOwner? No, *all* queries are executed within portals. The reason we need a transaction ResourceOwner is because query parsing/planning happens in advance of creating the portal, so we need someplace to keep track of resources acquired during that process. > How is the "unnamed portal" affected by it? Same as the rest. I don't recall whether SPI creates actual portals, but we'd definitely want it to create a new ResourceOwner for queries it runs. > On the other hand, some people supported the idea that v3 Bind portals > should behave nontransactionally, while DECLARE portals should behave > transactionally. Maybe we could make that a property of the portal, or > even a user-selectable property (where we would define a reasonable > default behavior). This is certainly possible. Whether it's a good idea needs further discussion... regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: