| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pierre Forstmann <pierre(dot)forstmann(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Unexpected results from CALL and AUTOCOMMIT=off |
| Date: | 2024-06-04 20:31:34 |
| Message-ID: | 584365.1717533094@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 02:28:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hence, new patch attached, now with docs and tests. Barring
>> objections I'll push this one.
> Should we expand the documentation for SPI_connect_ext() to note that
> SPI_execute_extended()/SPI_execute_plan_extended() depend on the flag?
Perhaps. They already did, in that the atomic flag was taken into
account while deciding how to handle a nested CALL; basically what this
fix does is to make sure that the snapshot handling is done the same
way. I think that what I added to the docs is probably sufficient,
but I'll yield to majority opinion if people think not.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shaheed Haque | 2024-06-04 21:35:21 | Re: Purpose of pg_dump tar archive format? |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-06-04 20:13:12 | Re: Unexpected results from CALL and AUTOCOMMIT=off |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-06-04 20:50:51 | Re: In-placre persistance change of a relation |
| Previous Message | Nathan Bossart | 2024-06-04 20:13:12 | Re: Unexpected results from CALL and AUTOCOMMIT=off |