Added to TODO, just so we don't forget later:

        * Use a phantom command counter for nested subtransactions to reduce
          tuple overhead


Tom Lane wrote:
> 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

  Bruce Momjian                        |
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to