| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, 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: | 2022-09-26 09:54:59 |
| Message-ID: | YzF286gtXNEluOKe@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:16:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, but why? I see no good reason why those fields need to be first.
My reasoning on these ones is that we are most likely going to add
more description flags in the future than new unit types. Perhaps I
am wrong.
> Looking at it closer, I agree that GUC_EXPLAIN and GUC_RUNTIME_COMPUTED
> should be moved to be with the other non-units flags. But I don't
> see why we need to re-order the entries more than that. I'm concerned
> for one thing that the order of the entries in this list stay comparable
> to the order in which the flags are dealt with in other code, such as
> pg_settings_get_flags or the guc_tables.c entries.
Yes, that's a minimal move.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2022-09-26 10:59:47 | Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end |
| Previous Message | Giuliano Sofi | 2022-09-26 09:06:49 | Read Replica Inconsistencies |