On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> On 2018-Jun-16, Robert Haas wrote:
>> I'm not sure that really solves the problem, because changing the GUC
>> in either direction causes the system to behave differently. I don't
>> see any particular reason to believe that changing the be
On 2018-Jun-16, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm not sure that really solves the problem, because changing the GUC
> in either direction causes the system to behave differently. I don't
> see any particular reason to believe that changing the behavior from A
> to B is any more or less likely to break app
On 15 June 2018 at 21:23, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I think the main objectionable point is that of making servers behave in
> a way that could lose data, if applications assume that transactions
> behave in the way they do today. I propose that we solve this by
> allowing this feature to be enabl
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 4:23 PM, Alvaro Herrera
wrote:
> I've been looking at re-implementing this feature recently, using
> Tsunakawa's proposed UI of a GUC transaction_rollback_scope that can
> take values "transaction" (default, current behavior) and "statement".
> I didn't take other parts of
From: Alvaro Herrera
> I've been looking at re-implementing this feature recently, using
> Tsunakawa's proposed UI of a GUC transaction_rollback_scope that can
> take values "transaction" (default, current behavior) and
"statement".
> I didn't take other parts of his patch though; see below.
Thank
On 2017-Nov-06, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Simon Riggs
> > A backend-based solution is required for PL procedures and functions.
> >
> > We could put this as an option into PL/pgSQL, but it seems like it is
> > a function of the transaction manager rather than the driver.
>
> Exactly. T
Hi,
On 2018-01-09 08:21:33 +, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Simon Riggs [mailto:si...@2ndquadrant.com]
> > When will the next version be posted?
>
> I'm very sorry I haven't submitted anything. I'd like to address this during
> this CF. Thanks for remembering this.
Given that no new
From: Simon Riggs [mailto:si...@2ndquadrant.com]
> When will the next version be posted?
I'm very sorry I haven't submitted anything. I'd like to address this during
this CF. Thanks for remembering this.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
On 6 November 2017 at 12:36, MauMau wrote:
> when I submit the next revision of my patch.
When will the next version be posted?
--
Simon Riggshttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 9:36 PM, MauMau wrote:
> From: Thomas Munro
> With your v2 patch "make docs" fails. Here is a small patch to apply
> on top of yours to fix that and some small copy/paste errors, if I
> understood correctly.
>
> Ouch, thanks. I'd like to merge your fix when I submit the ne
10 matches
Mail list logo
