Michael Allman wrote:
> Key to the protocol is the ability to start and end the association of
> transactions to threads of control. In particular, what's bothering me
> is that there appears to be no way to end the transaction association of
> the current postgres connection, either permanently or for suspension.
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> Thus work performed using the underlying physical connection of a
> PGXAResource unassociated with any transaction will still be performed
> on the connection's transaction.
You'll need another layer to support all of XA's behaviour -- this was
the discussion about mapping XA connections to physical connections that
happened on the list a while back, wasn't it?
It's probably unnecessary for the first cut, though. What exactly is the
behaviour that you can't support without that extra layer, and is it
needed for common use of XA? Seems to me that you could get away with
just disallowing work on a Connection that has an unprepared XA
transaction pending.
-O
