Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> writes:
>> What this would actually be useful for is a fair question
>> though --- what's it do that you don't have now?
> I think what they want to do is make the database concept of transactions
> match up 1-1 with their application's concept of transactions. Which may span
> multiple stateless http requests.
[ itch... ] This seems to me to fly right in the face of the
oft-repeated advice that you don't hold a transaction open while the
user thinks about it, goes off to lunch, vacations in the Bahamas, etc.
The question remains: what problem are we solving that actually
should be solved?
regards, tom lane
