Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmm ... yes, this could be very ugly indeed, but I haven't even looked
> at the executor code so I can't comment.  Are executor nodes copyable?

Nope, and even if we had support for that the executor tree per se
is just the tip of the iceberg.  There's also indexscan status, SRF
function internal state, yadda yadda.  I think the odds of doing
something with all that stuff for 7.5 are exactly zero ... we'd better
define a stopgap behavior.

> Oh, and I've been playing with large objects and I've encountered bugs
> elsewhere.  I'll look at it with the new patch you just posted.

Wouldn't surprise me, we've not looked at that yet either.

I do feel that we have enough things working that we should commit to
nested transactions for 7.5.  There will be some things that we have to
restrict, such as cursors and perhaps large objects.  But it's surely
better than no subtransactions at all.

                        regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
      subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
      message can get through to the mailing list cleanly

Reply via email to