| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, 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: | 2022-06-29 06:47:57 |
| Message-ID: | Yrv1nRsfasco768G@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 03:58:41PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Agreed. I've attached an updated patch.
+#define GUC_NO_RESET 0x400000 /* not support RESET and save */
It is a bit sad to see this new flag with this number, separated from
its cousin properties. Could it be better to reorganize the flag
values and give more room to the properties? The units for memory and
time could go first, for example.
+CREATE FUNCTION errfunc() RETURNS int LANGUAGE SQL AS 'SELECT 1'
+SET transaction_read_only = on; -- error
+ERROR: parameter "transaction_read_only" cannot be reset
Well, this is confusing when setting a GUC_NO_RESET in the context of
GUC_ACTION_SAVE.
By the way, what about "seed"?
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-06-29 12:09:17 | Re: Using PQexecQuery in pipeline mode produces unexpected Close messages |
| Previous Message | David Johansen | 2022-06-28 20:05:31 | Re: Auto-vacuum timing out and preventing connections |