On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Petr Jelinek <petr@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> I mostly agree. I think if this was called something like background
> transactions it might be better. It's definitely useful functionality but
> the naming is clearly contentious. It won't stop people using it for same
> use-cases as autonomous transactions though (which is fine).
Quite right.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
