On 2014-04-08 15:39:18 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > I'm also pretty unconvinced that multiple PGPROCs is the right way to > go. First, PGPROCs have a bunch of state in them that is assumed to > exist once per backend. We might find pretty substantial code churn > there if we try to go change that. Second, why do other backends > really need to know about our ATs? As far as I can see, if other > backends see the AT as a subtransaction of our top-level transaction > up until it actually commits, that ought to be just fine. Maybe the > backend needs to internally frob visibility rules, but that's not a > matter for shared memory.
Agreed. That's also how I imagined things to work. I think except the visibility semantics, there's really not that much to do if we were to reuse the subtransaction framework. There's some complications with Hot Standby, but I think those can be solved. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
