On 10/10/16 16:44, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> On 6 October 2016 at 21:27, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I think we should implement background transactions and call them >>> background transactions. That allows us to expose additional >>> functionality which is useful, like the ability to kick something off >>> and check back later for the results. There's no reason to call it >>> background transactions and also call it autonomous transactions: one >>> feature doesn't need two names. >> >> I'm happy to also invoke it via an alternate mechanism or API, so that >> it can continue to be used even if the above mechanism changes. >> >> We have no need to wait for the perfect solution, even assuming we >> would ever agree that just one exists. > > -1 on implementing both autonomous and background transactions. This > will confuse everyone. >
I personally care much more about having background transactions than autonomous ones (as I only ever had use-cases for the background ones) so don't agree there.
we can, we should to have both - background can be used for paralelism, autonomous for logging.
