Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2660F452332 for ; Wed, 4 Jan 2012 20:00:10 -0400 (AST) Received: from delta01.pnet.xcon.it ([62.48.53.16]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RiakX-0005Iq-Ea for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2012 00:00:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by delta01.pnet.xcon.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 16C01103456CB; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:59:51 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at delta01.pnet.xcon.it Received: from delta01.pnet.xcon.it ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (delta01.pnet.xcon.it [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id TUqBbG7DcwxK; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:59:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from leggeri.gi.lan (cpc9-dals16-2-0-cust500.hari.cable.virginmedia.com [77.99.161.245]) (Authenticated sender: gianni.ciolli@devise.it) by delta01.pnet.xcon.it (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A35FC103456C9; Thu, 5 Jan 2012 00:59:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from gianni by leggeri.gi.lan with local (masqmail 0.2.27) id 1RiakF-49L-00; Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:59:47 +0000 Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2012 23:59:47 +0000 From: Gianni Ciolli To: Jim Nasby Cc: Simon Riggs , pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Autonomous subtransactions Message-ID: <20120104235947.GA14382@leggeri.gi.lan> References: <20111218082812.GA14355@leggeri.gi.lan> <5B513EFD-7819-4600-BC09-39130CBBFBD0@nasby.net> <61C12A8A-855E-45FA-AF39-46BA3EB5E08A@nasby.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <61C12A8A-855E-45FA-AF39-46BA3EB5E08A@nasby.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Pg-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Archive-Number: 201201/223 X-Sequence-Number: 200817 On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 04:58:08PM -0600, Jim Nasby wrote: > Except AFAIR Oracle uses the term to indicate something that is > happening *outside* of your current transaction, which is definitely > not what the proposal is talking about. That feature is commonly translated in PostgreSQL to a dblink-based solution, which itself is not distant from the current proposal, at least in terms of inside/outside (the biggest difference I can see is on sharing temporary tables). But I am not sure I understand your remark; it would be clearer to me if you could provide an example explaining the difference. Dr. Gianni Ciolli - 2ndQuadrant Italia PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support gianni.ciolli@2ndquadrant.it | www.2ndquadrant.it