2014-04-07 12:16 GMT+02:00 Atri Sharma <atri.j...@gmail.com>: > > > > 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? >
commit of autonomous transaction doesn't depends on outer transaction. So anything what you can do, should be independent on outer transaction. Pavel > > What am I missing here? > > Regards, > > Atri >
