Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #33882, comment 32


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Oct 9, 2026, 3:11:01 AM (2 weeks ago)
Author:
Florian Apolloner

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #33882, comment 32

    initial v1  
    1 In general I think I am in agreement with most that was written here. One thing I am clearly not seeing though is why we would ever want a new thread/connection for transaction atomic. I can only think of downsides:
     1In general I think I am in agreement with most that was written here. One thing I am clearly not seeing though is why we would ever want a new thread/connection for `atomic`. I can only think of downsides:
    22
    33 * If you are using libraries that are not exactly threadsafe you are in another world of pain now since you are juggling data back and forth between threads
    … …  
    66Can't we just mark a `ThreadSensitiveContext` with the current task id running a transaction and then error out if any other task tries to run one concurrently?
    77
    8 My gut tells me that switching threads for atomic is gonna bite us way more than we can anticipate.
     8My gut tells me that switching threads for `atomic` is gonna bite us way more than we can anticipate.
Back to Top