Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you want me to do the legwork for this to happen, or was your initial
> plan to do it yourself? Either way is OK with me ...
I'm working on it, should have it done in a day or so.
regards, tom lane
-
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:11:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.
>
> > So within this proposal, a query executed by normal m
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On the other hand, some people supported the idea that v3 Bind portals
should behave nontransactionally, while DECLARE portals should behave
transactionally. Maybe we could make that a property of the portal, or
even a user-selectable property (where we would define a reasona
Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom,
As much as I can understand the arguments -- many of them performance-oriented
-- for handling Portals non-transactionally, I simply don't see how we can do
it and not create huge problems for anyone who uses both cursors and NTs
together ... as those who use either are l
Mike Rylander wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.
>>
>>> So within this proposal, a query executed by normal means will get
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.
>
>> So within this proposal, a query executed by normal means will get its
>> resources saved in the
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.
> So within this proposal, a query executed by normal means will get its
> resources saved in the transaction ResourceOwner
Tom,
As much as I can understand the arguments -- many of them performance-oriented
-- for handling Portals non-transactionally, I simply don't see how we can do
it and not create huge problems for anyone who uses both cursors and NTs
together ... as those who use either are liable to do.
> Wh
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.
> The problem really includes both cursors (created with DECLARE CURSOR)
> and portals (created with the V3-protocol Bind message) since they are
> the same kind of anima
My answers:
> Q1: Should Portals successfully created within the failed subxact
> be closed? Or should they remain open?
no for protocol level
I can understand a yes to this one for sql level, because it will be
hard to clean up by hand :-( But I like the analogy to hold cursors,
so I would a
10 matches
Mail list logo