On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 7:20 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I would like to propose the attached patch implementing autonomous > transactions for discussion and review.
I'm pretty skeptical of this approach. Like Greg Stark, Serge Rielau, and Constantin Pan, I had expected that autonomous transactions should be implemented inside of a single backend, without relying on workers. That approach would be much less likely to run afoul of limits on the number of background workers, and it will probably perform considerably better too, especially when the autonomous transaction does only a small amount of work, like inserting a log message someplace. That is not to say that providing an interface to some pg_background-like functionality is a bad idea; there's been enough interest in that from various quarters to suggest that it's actually quite useful, and I don't even think that it's a bad plan to integrate that with the PLs in some way. However, I think that it's a different feature than autonomous transactions. As others have also noted, it can be used to fire-and-forget a command, or to run a command while foreground processing continues, both of which would be out of scope for an autonomous transaction facility per se. So my suggestion is that you pursue the work but change the name. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers