From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
---|---|
To: | Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl> |
Cc: | Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com>, 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: | 2024-10-31 06:32:39 |
Message-ID: | ZyMkh3hVnZPaKc6K@paquier.xyz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 04:06:20PM +0100, Jelte Fennema-Nio wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 at 10:15, Anthonin Bonnefoy
> <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com> wrote:
>> The attached patch adds the detection of implicit transactions started
>> by a pipeline in CheckTransactionBlock, avoiding warnings when
>> commands like `set local` are called within a pipeline, and making the
>> detection of transaction block coherent with what's done in
>> IsInTransactionBlock and PreventInTransactionBlock.
>
> +1 seems like a reasonable change.
That's indeed a bit strange. I think that you're right.
@Tom added in CC: Is there a specific reason why CheckTransactionBlock()
did not include a check based on XACT_FLAGS_PIPELINING when it got
introduced in 20432f873140, while IsInTransactionBlock() considers it?
This was discussed here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/17434-d9f7a064ce2a88a3%40postgresql.org
--
Michael
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vladlen Popolitov | 2024-10-31 06:37:31 | Re: [PATCH] Add array_reverse() function |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-10-31 06:17:23 | Re: define pg_structiszero(addr, s, r) |