Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> 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.
If we can make it work like that, sure. I'm a bit worried about how you'd
decouple a subtransaction and commit it atomically ... or if that's not
atomic, will it create any problems? The point being that you need to
change both pg_subtrans and pg_clog to make that state transition.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
