Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP)
Date
Msg-id 31328.1397060453@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Autonomous Transaction (WIP)  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 12:24 AM, Rajeev rastogi
> <rajeev.rastogi@huawei.com> wrote:
>> Now when we grant the lock to particular transaction, depending on type of transaction, bit
>> Mask will be set for either holdMaskByAutoTx or holdMaskByNormalTx.
>> Similar when lock is ungranted, corresponding bitmask will be reset.

> That sounds pretty ugly, not to mention the fact that it will cause a
> substantial increase in the amount of memory required to store
> PROCLOCKs.  It will probably slow things down, too.

More to the point, why isn't it a flat-out bad idea?  I can see no
justification for distinguishing normal and autonomous transactions
at this level.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [DOCS] Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation
Next
From: Emre Hasegeli
Date:
Subject: Re: GiST support for inet datatypes