2016-10-11 21:54 GMT+02:00 Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com>: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Petr Jelinek <p...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > On 10/10/16 16:44, Merlin Moncure wrote: > >> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > >>> 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. > > All right. But would you agree then that AT should at least emulate > competing implementations? A major advantage of bgworkers is possibly > supporting concurrent activity and maybe the syntax could be more > directed to possibly moving in that direction other than copying > oracle style (PRAGMA etc), particularly if the locking rules are > substantially different. >
There is a big trap - AT is usually used for writing to log tables. When BT fails on maximum active workers then, then you cannot do any expected operation. Regards Pavel > > merlin > > > -- > Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers >
