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.
-- Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
