From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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: | 2022-06-28 06:58:41 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoBz4xZ3uOZS+xYENsYta4PPPkGYPDzzPqqw5GJgrQC7hg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 9:37 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 02:53:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > (This does imply that it's not sensible to mark a variable
> > GUC_NO_RESET without also saying GUC_NO_RESET_ALL. That
> > seems fine to me, because I'm not sure what the combination
> > GUC_NO_RESET & !GUC_NO_RESET_ALL ought to mean.)
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:23:57PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Attached an updated patch. I kept the name GUC_NO_RESET but I'll
> > change it if we find a better name for it.
>
> I think guc.sql should check that NO_RESET implies NO_RESET_ALL, or otherwise
> guc.c could incorporate that logic by checking (NO_RESET | NO_RESET_ALL)
Agreed. I've attached an updated patch.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com/
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
v4-0001-Introduce-GUC_NOT_RESET-flag.patch | application/octet-stream | 10.5 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-06-28 07:58:49 | Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end |
Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-06-28 04:42:39 | Re: Auto-vacuum timing out and preventing connections |