On Dec 19, 2011, at 12:31 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: > On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Jim Nasby <j...@nasby.net> wrote: >> On Dec 18, 2011, at 2:28 AM, Gianni Ciolli wrote: >>> I have written some notes about autonomous subtransactions, which have >>> already been touched (at least) in two separate threads; please find >>> them at >>> >>> http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Autonomous_subtransactions >> >> The document seems to mix the terms subtransaction and autonomous >> transaction. That's going to generate a ton of confusion, because both terms >> already have meaning associated with them: >> >> - Autonomous transaction means you can execute something outside of your >> current transaction and it is in no way effected by the current transaction >> (doesn't matter if T0 commits or not). >> - Subtransactions are an alternative to savepoints. They allow you to break >> a large transaction into smaller chunks, but if T0 doesn't commit then none >> of the subtransactions do either. > > OK, perhaps we should just stick to the term Autonomous Transaction. > That term is in common use, even if the usage is otherwise exactly the > same as a subtransaction i.e. main transaction stops until the > subtransaction is complete.
Except AFAIR Oracle uses the term to indicate something that is happening *outside* of your current transaction, which is definitely not what the proposal is talking about. I'm not wed to "subtransaction" (though I think it's a perfectly good name for this), but I definitely think calling this an "autonomous transaction" would be bad. -- Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect j...@nasby.net 512.569.9461 (cell) http://jim.nasby.net -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
