Re: Portals and nested transactions - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Portals and nested transactions
Date
Msg-id 8633.1089832314@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Portals and nested transactions  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>)
Responses Re: Portals and nested transactions  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.

> So within this proposal, a query executed by normal means will get its
> resources saved in the transaction ResourceOwner?

No, *all* queries are executed within portals.  The reason we need a
transaction ResourceOwner is because query parsing/planning happens in
advance of creating the portal, so we need someplace to keep track of
resources acquired during that process.

> How is the "unnamed portal" affected by it?

Same as the rest.

I don't recall whether SPI creates actual portals, but we'd definitely
want it to create a new ResourceOwner for queries it runs.

> On the other hand, some people supported the idea that v3 Bind portals
> should behave nontransactionally, while DECLARE portals should behave
> transactionally.  Maybe we could make that a property of the portal, or
> even a user-selectable property (where we would define a reasonable
> default behavior).

This is certainly possible.  Whether it's a good idea needs further
discussion...
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Marc G. Fournier"
Date:
Subject: Re: Release planning
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Point in Time Recovery