| 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: | 2022-09-27 03:39:28 |
| Message-ID: | YzJwcL71yaWqCVJ1@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:07:50AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
>> + <entry><literal>NO_RESET</literal></entry>
>> + <entry>Parameters with this flag do not support
>> + <command>RESET</command> commands.
>> + </entry>
>
> > As per the issue with SET commands used with functions, this
> > description does not completely reflect the reality.
>
> It seems adequate enough to me ... do you have a suggestion?
As we are talking about a description with GUC_ACTION_SAVE, something
like "Parameters with this flag do not support RESET, or SET in the
context of a function call"? NO_RESET sounds a bit confusing as a
name if you consider this second part (it can be understood as
resetting the value as well), but keeping it as-is does not look like
a big deal to me with this description, or an equivalent, in place.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-09-27 07:50:54 | Re: pg_rewind WAL segments deletion pitfall |
| Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-09-27 01:26:11 | Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end |