On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, Greg Stark<stark@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 6:40 PM, Alvaro
> Herrera<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>>> What in heck is a named transaction, and why should we care?
>>>
>>> Isn't this just another name for a subtransaction or inner transaction
>>> that can be separately committed?
>>
>> AFAIK that's an "autonomous transaction", at least to some other RDBMSs.
>
> I have no idea what they are in Firebird but the name conjured up a
> different (interesting) idea for me. I had the image of naming a
> transaction and then being able to have other sessions join that same
> transaction. We've discussed this before for connection-pooled systems
> which want to be able to return their connection to the pool in the
> middle of their transaction. It would also possibly be useful for
> parallel data dumps and loads.
At the risk of veering off-topic, wouldn't this present some awfully
nasty issues vis-a-vis the command counter?
...Robert