2016-10-11 17:06 GMT+02:00 Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com>: > On 10/10/16 16:44, Merlin Moncure wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > >> On 6 October 2016 at 21:27, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> I think we should implement background transactions and call them > >>> background transactions. That allows us to expose additional > >>> functionality which is useful, like the ability to kick something off > >>> and check back later for the results. There's no reason to call it > >>> background transactions and also call it autonomous transactions: one > >>> feature doesn't need two names. > >> > >> I'm happy to also invoke it via an alternate mechanism or API, so that > >> it can continue to be used even if the above mechanism changes. > >> > >> We have no need to wait for the perfect solution, even assuming we > >> would ever agree that just one exists. > > > > -1 on implementing both autonomous and background transactions. This > > will confuse everyone. > > > > I personally care much more about having background transactions than > autonomous ones (as I only ever had use-cases for the background ones) > so don't agree there. >
we can, we should to have both - background can be used for paralelism, autonomous for logging. they are not 100% replaceable. Regards Pavel > > -- > Petr Jelinek 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 >
