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 <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl> 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 majordomo@postgresql.org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073