Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block

From: Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block
Date: 2024-11-27 07:28:50
Message-ID: CAO6_XqpoeE3HwAoj02_OFpnKWQDzbRCXLug3LdWfbLe=GixH6Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 1:42 AM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> I've edited the whole, added this extra test based on \syncpipeline in
> 17~, kept the remaining tests in 14~ where pgbench is able to handle
> them, and backpatched that down to 13. Let's see now what we can do
> with the psql bits.

Thanks!

> Anthonin, now that the original problem is solved, could you create a
> new thread with your new proposal for psql? That would attract a
> better audience for reviews.

Yes, I will rebase and start the dedicated thread for the pipeline
support in psql.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marina Polyakova 2024-11-27 07:31:17 Re: Fix meson uuid header check so it works with MSVC in REL_16_STABLE
Previous Message Sergey Dudoladov 2024-11-27 07:28:25 Re: Add connection active, idle time to pg_stat_activity