Re: [HACKERS] Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT
Also, per other discussions, we are removing backend autocommit support in 7.4. It was the wrong way to do it. Somehow I did not see that conclusion made. I thought, at least for JDBC, it is already successfully used ? I think the backend autocommit is useful. Maybe only the installation/database/user wide GUC setting should be depricated/ disabled, so it is only used by a session SET ? Andreas ---(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
Re: [HACKERS] Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT
Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Somehow I did not see that conclusion made. I thought, at least for JDBC, it is already successfully used ? Barry, at least, seemed to be happy with removing it, given the planned protocol change to report current transaction state after every query. I think the backend autocommit is useful. Maybe only the installation/database/user wide GUC setting should be depricated/ disabled, so it is only used by a session SET ? That wouldn't really solve any of the problems. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send unregister YourEmailAddressHere to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [HACKERS] Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT
Andreas, From the JDBC side it really doesn't make that much difference. The JDBC code needs to support both ways of doing it (explicit begin/commits for 7.2 and earlier servers, and set autocommit for 7.3 servers), so however it ends up for 7.4 it shouldn't be too much work to adopt. As Tom has mentioned elsewhere the key change is having the FE/BE protocol report the current transaction state. thanks, --Barry Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD wrote: Also, per other discussions, we are removing backend autocommit support in 7.4. It was the wrong way to do it. Somehow I did not see that conclusion made. I thought, at least for JDBC, it is already successfully used ? I think the backend autocommit is useful. Maybe only the installation/database/user wide GUC setting should be depricated/ disabled, so it is only used by a session SET ? Andreas ---(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 ---(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
Re: [HACKERS] Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT
Hi, Tom Lane wrote: It seems to me that it'd be fairly easy to make BEGIN cause only a local state change in the backend; the actual transaction need not start until the first subsequent command is received. It's already true that the transaction snapshot is not frozen at BEGIN time, but only when the first DML or DDL command is received; so this would have no impact on the client-visible semantics. But a BEGIN-then- sleep-for-awhile client wouldn't interfere with VACUUM anymore. As I can remember, already, when autocommit off transaction begin with first DML or DDL command. May be better change client to use autocommit off mode? -- Olleg Samojlov ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT
Olleg Samojlov [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As I can remember, already, when autocommit off transaction begin with first DML or DDL command. May be better change client to use autocommit off mode? We've been waiting for those clients to get fixed for a long while. Waiting for them to adopt autocommit-off seems about as hopeless as waiting for them to postpone BEGIN :-( Also, per other discussions, we are removing backend autocommit support in 7.4. It was the wrong way to do it. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [HACKERS] Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote: It seems to me that it'd be fairly easy to make BEGIN cause only a local state change in the backend; the actual transaction need not start until the first subsequent command is received. It's already true that the transaction snapshot is not frozen at BEGIN time, but only when the first DML or DDL command is received; so this would have no impact on the client-visible semantics. But a BEGIN-then- sleep-for-awhile client wouldn't interfere with VACUUM anymore. What about serializable mode? Wouldn't that break it? ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT
scott.marlowe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote: It seems to me that it'd be fairly easy to make BEGIN cause only a local state change in the backend; the actual transaction need not start until the first subsequent command is received. It's already true that the transaction snapshot is not frozen at BEGIN time, but only when the first DML or DDL command is received; so this would have no impact on the client-visible semantics. But a BEGIN-then- sleep-for-awhile client wouldn't interfere with VACUUM anymore. What about serializable mode? Wouldn't that break it? No. Even in serializable mode, we don't set the snapshot until the first DML/DDL command. (This *has* to be true because if you want to take any locks via explicit LOCK commands, you need to be able to issue those before the snapshot is frozen. Doesn't do you much good to lock a table if your view of the table will date from before the lock.) AFAICT the only part of this proposal that would result in any change in user-visible behavior is the proposal to alter the point where now() is frozen. But that's really an independent question. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 11:13:28PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
The other thing that could be thought about here is when to freeze the
value of now(). Currently now() is frozen when BEGIN is received.
We could keep doing that, but it seems to me it would make more sense
to freeze now() when the transaction snapshot is established. In a
very real sense, the transaction snapshot defines when the transaction
starts --- so shouldn't now() agree?
Yes, I saw this in the code and wondered about the inconsistency. I
agree the timestamp should be taken at the same time as the snapshot.
While at this, what do you think about adding the necessary variables
to make now('transaction') and now('query') possible?
--
Alvaro Herrera (alvherre[a]dcc.uchile.cl)
En las profundidades de nuestro inconsciente hay una obsesiva necesidad
de un universo lógico y coherente. Pero el universo real se halla siempre
un paso más allá de la lógica (Irulan)
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT
Doug McNaught wrote:
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Accordingly, it's a bad idea to invent now('clock') and make it the
same function as the other flavors. We could get away with making
now('transaction') and now('statement') but the argument for this
was consistency, and that argument pretty much falls flat if those two
are one function while clock time is something else.
So I'm back in the camp of thinking three separate parameterless
functions are the way to do it. We already know what now() does,
and we're not going to change it --- anyone want to propose names
for the other two?
Maybe clock_time() and statement_time(), with transaction_time() an
alias for now() (if that's seemed necessary)?
Agreed on the need to not use args for now().
We already have CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. Would CLOCK_TIMESTAMP,
TRANSACTION_TIMESTAMP, and STATEMENT_TIMESTAMP make sense, with
CURRENT_TIMESTAMP being the same as TRANSACTION_TIMESTAMP?
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha.pa.us
[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 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
Re: [HACKERS] Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Doug McNaught wrote: Maybe clock_time() and statement_time(), with transaction_time() an alias for now() (if that's seemed necessary)? I could go with that ... We already have CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. Would CLOCK_TIMESTAMP, TRANSACTION_TIMESTAMP, and STATEMENT_TIMESTAMP make sense, with CURRENT_TIMESTAMP being the same as TRANSACTION_TIMESTAMP? ... or that. But, please, *not* the weird no-parentheses syntax that CURRENT_TIMESTAMP has. Make it clock_timestamp() and so on. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
[HACKERS] Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT
A conversation with Andrew Sullivan led me to the following idea: We have a number of frontends that like to issue BEGIN immediately after COMMIT; so that if the client does nothing for awhile after finishing one transaction, the backend nonetheless sees it as being in a transaction. This creates problems for VACUUM since the open transaction prevents it from removing dead tuples. This has been known for a long time, and so far the hackers' opinion has been that those frontends are broken and should be fixed. But AFAIK they are not getting fixed. And some important frontends are involved (I believe JDBC and DBI, and perhaps also ODBC, behave this way). Maybe it's time to think about a fix on the backend side. It seems to me that it'd be fairly easy to make BEGIN cause only a local state change in the backend; the actual transaction need not start until the first subsequent command is received. It's already true that the transaction snapshot is not frozen at BEGIN time, but only when the first DML or DDL command is received; so this would have no impact on the client-visible semantics. But a BEGIN-then- sleep-for-awhile client wouldn't interfere with VACUUM anymore. The other thing that could be thought about here is when to freeze the value of now(). Currently now() is frozen when BEGIN is received. We could keep doing that, but it seems to me it would make more sense to freeze now() when the transaction snapshot is established. In a very real sense, the transaction snapshot defines when the transaction starts --- so shouldn't now() agree? If we did both of these things, then the negatives of doing an early BEGIN would pretty much vanish, and we'd not need to complain that these client libraries are broken. Comments? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] Changing behavior of BEGIN...sleep...do something...COMMIT
On Fri, 28 Mar 2003, Tom Lane wrote: It seems to me that it'd be fairly easy to make BEGIN cause only a local state change in the backend; the actual transaction need not start until the first subsequent command is received. [snip] In a very real sense, the transaction snapshot defines when the transaction starts --- so shouldn't now() agree? If we did both of these things, then the negatives of doing an early BEGIN would pretty much vanish, and we'd not need to complain that these client libraries are broken. Comments? Both ideas sound like a win to me. Jon ---(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
