On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > 2014-04-07 11:59 GMT+02:00 Rajeev rastogi <rajeev.rast...@huawei.com>: > > On 07 April 2014 12:12, Pavel Stehule wrote: >> >> >+1 for feature >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> >-1 for Oracle syntax - it is hardly inconsistent with Postgres >> >> We can discuss and come out with the syntax based on everyone agreement. >> >> >Autonomous transactions should be used everywhere - not only in plpgsql >> >> >> >> Yes you are right. I am not planning to support only using plpgsql. >> Initially we can support this >> >> Using the standalone SQL-commands and then later we can enhance based on >> this infrastructure >> >> to be used using plpgsql, triggers. >> > > ok > > long time I though about this feature. > > I am thinking so this should be fully isolated transaction - it should not > be subtransaction, because then you can break database consistency - RI > > > I am missing something here, but how does making it a subtransaction break consistency? Isnt that what should actually be happening so that the autonomous transaction's changes are actually visible till the parent transaction commits? What am I missing here? Regards, Atri
