> On Aug 31, 2016, at 6:46 AM, Greg Stark <st...@mit.edu> wrote:
> Using a background worker mean that the autonomous transaction can't
> access any state from the process memory. Parameters in plpgsql are a
> symptom of this but I suspect there will be others. What happens if a
> statement timeout occurs during an autonomous transaction? What
> happens if you use a pl language in the autonomous transaction and if
> it tries to use non-transactional information such as prepared
> statements?
+1 on this.
The proposed solution loosely matches what was done in DB2 9.7 and it runs into 
the same 
complexity. Passing local variable or session level variables back and forth 
became a source of grief.

At SFDC PG we have taken a different tack:
1. Gather up all the transaction state that is scattered across global 
variables into a struct
2. backup/restore transaction state when an autonomous transaction is invoked.

This allows full access to all non-transactional state.

The downside is that full access also includes uncommitted DDL (shared 
So we had to restrict DDL in the parent transaction prior to the spawning of 
the child.

If there is interest in exploring this kind of solution as an alternative I can 


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to