2016-10-11 17:06 GMT+02:00 Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com>:
> On 10/10/16 16:44, Merlin Moncure wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com>
> >> On 6 October 2016 at 21:27, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I think we should implement background transactions and call them
> >>> background transactions. That allows us to expose additional
> >>> functionality which is useful, like the ability to kick something off
> >>> and check back later for the results. There's no reason to call it
> >>> background transactions and also call it autonomous transactions: one
> >>> feature doesn't need two names.
> >> I'm happy to also invoke it via an alternate mechanism or API, so that
> >> it can continue to be used even if the above mechanism changes.
> >> We have no need to wait for the perfect solution, even assuming we
> >> would ever agree that just one exists.
> > -1 on implementing both autonomous and background transactions. This
> > will confuse everyone.
> I personally care much more about having background transactions than
> autonomous ones (as I only ever had use-cases for the background ones)
> so don't agree there.
we can, we should to have both - background can be used for paralelism,
autonomous for logging.
they are not 100% replaceable.
> Petr Jelinek http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com)
> To make changes to your subscription: