| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Dmitry Koval <d(dot)koval(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, andrewbille(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end |
| Date: | 2022-09-26 04:16:24 |
| Message-ID: | 3269450.1664165784@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
[ hit send too soon ... ]
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2022 at 04:57:51PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 0002 seems quite invasive and hard to review compared to what it
>> accomplishes.
> 0002 is not that confusing to me: the units are moved to be first and
> to use the first flag bytes, while the more conceptual flags are moved
> to be always after.
Yeah, but why? I see no good reason why those fields need to be first.
> I would have reorganized a bit more the
> description flags, TBH.
Looking at it closer, I agree that GUC_EXPLAIN and GUC_RUNTIME_COMPUTED
should be moved to be with the other non-units flags. But I don't
see why we need to re-order the entries more than that. I'm concerned
for one thing that the order of the entries in this list stay comparable
to the order in which the flags are dealt with in other code, such as
pg_settings_get_flags or the guc_tables.c entries.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alexander Kukushkin | 2022-09-26 07:08:25 | Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-26 04:07:50 | Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end |