Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP)

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Atri Sharma
Тема Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP)
Дата
Msg-id CAOeZVieDjbMU240EkAwjafvXWuE0_57=XWcHZ2GokdSPs36OnQ@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP)  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP)
Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения



On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:



2014-04-07 11:59 GMT+02:00 Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rastogi@huawei.com>:

On 07 April 2014 12:12, Pavel Stehule wrote:

>+1 for feature

Thanks

 

>-1 for Oracle syntax - it is hardly inconsistent with Postgres

We can discuss and come out with the syntax based on everyone agreement.

>Autonomous transactions should be used everywhere - not only in plpgsql

 

Yes you are right. I am not planning to support only using plpgsql.  Initially we can support this

Using the standalone SQL-commands and then later we can enhance based on this infrastructure

to be used using plpgsql, triggers.


ok

long time I though about this feature.

I am thinking so this should be fully isolated transaction - it should not be subtransaction, because then you can break database consistency - RI



I am missing something here, but how does making it a subtransaction break consistency? Isnt that what should actually be happening so that the autonomous transaction's changes are actually visible till the parent transaction commits?

What am I missing here?

Regards,

Atri

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: