| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures |
| Date: | 2017-12-20 15:08:26 |
| Message-ID: | fb4d487d-3dd9-aa0f-ee01-c2effa0dbbc8@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Updated patch attached.
I have addressed the most recent review comments I believe.
The question about what happens to cursor loops in PL/Perl and PL/Python
would be addressed by the separate thread "portal pinning". The test
cases in this patch are currently marked by FIXMEs.
I have changed the SPI API a bit. I got rid of SPI_set_nonatomic() and
instead introduced SPI_connect_ext() that you can pass flags to. The
advantage of that is that in the normal case we can continue to use the
existing memory contexts, so nothing changes for existing uses, which
seems desirable. (This also appears to address some sporadic test
failures in PL/Perl.)
I have also cleaned up the changes in portalmem.c further, so the
changes are now even smaller.
The commit message in this patch contains more details about some of
these changes.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v5-0001-Transaction-control-in-PL-procedures.patch | text/plain | 89.5 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-12-20 15:20:08 | Re: [HACKERS] static assertions in C++ |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2017-12-20 14:47:14 | Re: pltcl valgrind output |