Re: Assertion failure with a subtransaction and cursor

Tom Lane wrote:
> Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>> Ok, committed that way. I made the cross-check a WARNING. That seems
>> like the right level of seriousness, although I see that many of the
>> other similar checks are Asserts.
>
> Looks good. I'm a bit tempted to rename the interXact argument to
> something like noOwner --- no change in API, just name it a bit closer
> to what it actually does now. Thoughts?

Well, I did keep the cross-check at end-of-transaction, so it's not a
complete misnomer as it is; a file opened with interXact=false can't be
used across transactions. I won't object if you feel like renaming it,
though.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com