Re: Autonomous Transaction is back - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Merlin Moncure
Subject Re: Autonomous Transaction is back
Date
Msg-id CAHyXU0xashB_MGxNPBLv70BsP-Rvniq8afJ9DhFNw-=p_4DxJA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Autonomous Transaction is back  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: Autonomous Transaction is back  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2015 at 10:04:01AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 1:56 AM, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
>> > What design principle(s) have you been using to decide how autonomous
>> > transactions should behave?
>>
>> I have to admit to a complete lack of principle.  I'm quite frightened
>> of what this is going to need from the lock manager, and I'm trying to
>> wriggle out of having to do things there that are going to be nastily
>> hard.  My wriggling isn't going very well, though.
>
> It's an exceptionally-challenging development project, agreed.  So much code
> assumes the 1:1 relationship between backends and top-level transactions.

I guess I'm being obtuse, but can you explain why that assumption must
be revisited?  I don't see why it has to be...I must be missing
something.

merlin



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Comment update to pathnode.c
Next
From: Kevin Grittner
Date:
Subject: Re: RLS open items are vague and unactionable