On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 09:33:45PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote: > On Mon, 2012-08-20 at 19:17 -0400, David Johnston wrote: > > Ideally the decision of whether to do so could be a client > > decision. Not storing intra-transaction changes is easier than > > storing all changes. At worse you could stage up all changed then > > simply fail to store all intermediate results within a given > > relation. It that case you gain nothing in execution performance > > but safe both storage and interpretative resources. So the > > question becomes is it worth doing without the ability to store > > intermediate results? If you were to ponder both which setup > > would the default be? If the default is the harder one (all > > statements) to implement then to avoid upgrade issues the syntax > > should specify that it is logging transactions only. > > I think the biggest question here is what guarantees can be offered? > What if the transaction aborts after having written some data, does > the audit log still get updated?
There are definitely use cases for this, but until we have autonomous transactions, a totally separate project, I don't think we should attempt them in the first version. Cheers, David. -- David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/ Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fet...@gmail.com iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics Remember to vote! Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers