| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block |
| Date: | 2024-11-27 20:54:24 |
| Message-ID: | 1915923.1732740864@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm very surprised that this was back-patched. I think we should
> revert it from the back-branches before it gets into a minor release.
> It seems like a clear definitional change, which has no business in a
> minor release.
I was troubled by that too. Maybe this can be painted as a bug fix
but it seems very questionable --- and even if it is, is it worth
the risk of unexpected side-effects? I'd rather see something that
touches wire-protocol behavior go through a normal beta test cycle.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-11-27 21:05:47 | Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2024-11-27 20:50:46 | Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block |