Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 19:37:20 -0500
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Koval <d.koval@postgrespro.ru>,
	Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, 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
Message-ID: <20220628003720.GG19662@telsasoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAD21AoDWHkBBGvvJuLEBqMjiPiYOiVJ6voFBWYbOBsU+-Cot2A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220628003720.GG19662%40telsasoft.com>
Precedence: bulk

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