My answers:
Q1: Should Portals successfully created within the failed subxact
be closed? Or should they remain open?
no for protocol level
I can understand a yes to this one for sql level, because it will be
hard to clean up by hand :-( But I like the analogy to hold cursors,
so I would
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.
The problem really includes both cursors (created with DECLARE CURSOR)
and portals (created with the V3-protocol Bind message) since they are
the same kind of animal
Tom,
As much as I can understand the arguments -- many of them performance-oriented
-- for handling Portals non-transactionally, I simply don't see how we can do
it and not create huge problems for anyone who uses both cursors and NTs
together ... as those who use either are liable to do.
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.
So within this proposal, a query executed by normal means will get its
resources saved in the transaction ResourceOwner?
No,
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.
So within this proposal, a query executed by normal means will get its
resources saved in the transaction
Mike Rylander wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.
So within this proposal, a query executed by normal means will get its
resources
Josh Berkus wrote:
Tom,
As much as I can understand the arguments -- many of them performance-oriented
-- for handling Portals non-transactionally, I simply don't see how we can do
it and not create huge problems for anyone who uses both cursors and NTs
together ... as those who use either are
Alvaro Herrera wrote:
On the other hand, some people supported the idea that v3 Bind portals
should behave nontransactionally, while DECLARE portals should behave
transactionally. Maybe we could make that a property of the portal, or
even a user-selectable property (where we would define a
On Wed, Jul 14, 2004 at 03:11:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 04:57:06PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.
So within this proposal, a query executed by normal means will
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Do you want me to do the legwork for this to happen, or was your initial
plan to do it yourself? Either way is OK with me ...
I'm working on it, should have it done in a day or so.
regards, tom lane
I've been thinking about what to do with cursors in subtransactions.
The problem really includes both cursors (created with DECLARE CURSOR)
and portals (created with the V3-protocol Bind message) since they are
the same kind of animal internally, namely a Portal. In previous
discussion I think
11 matches
Mail list logo
