| 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: | 2022-09-27 13:56:57 |
| Message-ID: | 3667394.1664287017@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> As we are talking about a description with GUC_ACTION_SAVE, something
> like "Parameters with this flag do not support RESET, or SET in the
> context of a function call"? NO_RESET sounds a bit confusing as a
> name if you consider this second part (it can be understood as
> resetting the value as well), but keeping it as-is does not look like
> a big deal to me with this description, or an equivalent, in place.
Yeah, we already talked upthread about how the SAVE restriction makes
"NO_RESET" a bit of a misnomer. Nobody proposed a better name though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-27 15:51:45 | Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-09-27 07:50:54 | Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall |