From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Koval <d.koval@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Cc: andrewbille@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 19:37:20 -0500
Message-ID: <20220628003720.GG19662@telsasoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD21AoDWHkBBGvvJuLEBqMjiPiYOiVJ6voFBWYbOBsU+-Cot2A@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 02:53:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> (This does imply that it's not sensible to mark a variable
> GUC_NO_RESET without also saying GUC_NO_RESET_ALL. That
> seems fine to me, because I'm not sure what the combination
> GUC_NO_RESET & !GUC_NO_RESET_ALL ought to mean.)
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:23:57PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached an updated patch. I kept the name GUC_NO_RESET but I'll
> change it if we find a better name for it.
I think guc.sql should check that NO_RESET implies NO_RESET_ALL, or otherwise
guc.c could incorporate that logic by checking (NO_RESET | NO_RESET_ALL)
--
Justin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org
Cc: pryzby@telsasoft.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sawada.mshk@gmail.com, d.koval@postgrespro.ru, dilipbalaut@gmail.com, horikyota.ntt@gmail.com
Subject: Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end
In-Reply-To: <20220628003720.GG19662@telsasoft.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox