Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > Hmm, this got me thinking whether the current resource owner setup for a > procedure is appropriate. Maybe the problem is that resowners are still > thought of in terms of transactions plus portals, so that if > transactions are done then everything is over; maybe we need to teach > them that procedures can outlive transactions, so you'd have a resowner > that's global to the procedure and then each transaction resowner is a > child of that one?
The procedure still has to be running inside a query, and therefore inside a portal, so the portal's resowner ought to be sufficiently long-lived for any resources that ought to be procedure-lifetime. So I doubt we need any more resowners. It's certainly possible that something somewhere is assigning a particular resource to the wrong resowner, of course. regards, tom lane