On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > I mostly agree. I think if this was called something like background > transactions it might be better. It's definitely useful functionality but > the naming is clearly contentious. It won't stop people using it for same > use-cases as autonomous transactions though (which is fine).
Quite right. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
