Re: Autonomous transaction - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Autonomous transaction
Date
Msg-id 201004140001.o3E01A323534@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Autonomous transaction  (pg@thetdh.com)
Responses Re: Autonomous transaction  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
pg@thetdh.com wrote:
>  It would be useful to have a relation such that all dirtied
>  buffers got written out even for failed transactions (barring
>  a crash) and such that read-any-undeleted were easy to do,
>  despite the non-ACIDity. The overhead of a side transaction
>  seems overkill for such things as logs or advisory relations,
>  and non-DB files would be harder to tie in efficiently to DB
>  activity. A side transaction would still have to be committed
>  in order to be useful; either you're committing frequently
>  (ouch!), or you risk failing to commit just as you would the
>  main transaction.

Yea, having some things in our system be non-transactional is odd and
hard to understand.  Just thinking about it, it seems it would introduce
all sorts of odd behaviors.

-- Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: How to generate specific WAL records?
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Nice hint on table aliasing!