On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Greg Stark<st...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Alvaro > Herrera<alvhe...@commandprompt.com> wrote: >> Andrew Dunstan wrote: >> >>> Tom Lane wrote: >>>> What in heck is a named transaction, and why should we care? >>> >>> Isn't this just another name for a subtransaction or inner transaction >>> that can be separately committed? >> >> AFAIK that's an "autonomous transaction", at least to some other RDBMSs. > > I have no idea what they are in Firebird but the name conjured up a > different (interesting) idea for me. I had the image of naming a > transaction and then being able to have other sessions join that same > transaction. We've discussed this before for connection-pooled systems > which want to be able to return their connection to the pool in the > middle of their transaction. It would also possibly be useful for > parallel data dumps and loads.
At the risk of veering off-topic, wouldn't this present some awfully nasty issues vis-a-vis the command counter? ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers