Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 14:48:59 +0900
From: Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
 pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, "David G. Johnston"
 <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
Subject: Re: BUG #17434: CREATE/DROP DATABASE can be executed in the same
 transaction with other commands
Message-Id: <20221110144859.d9004fdd47396fe64fe032da@sraoss.co.jp>
In-Reply-To: <3995893.1668011885@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <17434-d9f7a064ce2a88a3@postgresql.org>
	<3190751.1657845414@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKFQuwbY_vJWcvJLUz2r+zzwwhkJbjzjojfGx=Mvd9TZ0TTKew@mail.gmail.com>
	<3498921.1657919211@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKFQuwa9JQgKgg3Djrx=7p1Phhj68QEq0TWYG72Xv-nPz61r0w@mail.gmail.com>
	<805866.1658175624@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKFQuwYQpm6E4nTgiOZAGRg0JKquHaXQ0JkqruWeHuOQX6-70g@mail.gmail.com>
	<2350990.1658848101@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKFQuwYRYhF8iOD9MHp7VuZur_JvVEjDzpMHuUHNeYReB5v2Sw@mail.gmail.com>
	<2356216.1658849834@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKFQuwYxPhPVMGJ-uoV7rq291xAU3dwww2fWwMuaz6EPiruJ5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<2361330.1658851386@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAKFQuwYaN+SJyHcXyjAwZ7zRCze+6Xj7ns_hOEg2+fhZEJUOHg@mail.gmail.com>
	<2363212.1658852059@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20220728105134.d5ce51dd756b3149e9b9c52c@sraoss.co.jp>
	<3214515.1658976655@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<20220809002102.b815cd4dad20fdc91dff5ce8@sraoss.co.jp>
	<65a899dd-aebc-f667-1d0a-abb89ff3abf8@enterprisedb.com>
	<3995893.1668011885@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20221110144859.d9004fdd47396fe64fe032da%40sraoss.co.jp>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 09 Nov 2022 11:38:05 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > This has broken the following use:
> 
> > parse: create temporary table t1 (a int) on commit drop
> > bind
> > execute
> > parse: analyze t1
> > bind
> > execute
> > parse: select * from t1
> > bind
> > execute
> > sync
> 
> > I think the behavior of IsInTransactionBlock() needs to be further 
> > refined to support this.
> 
> Hmm.  Maybe the right way to think about this is "if we have completed an
> EXECUTE, and not yet received a following SYNC, then report that we are in
> a transaction block"?  But I'm not sure if that breaks any other cases.

Or, in that case, regarding it as an implicit transaction if multiple commands
are executed in a pipeline as proposed in [1] could be another solution, 
although I have once withdrawn this for not breaking backward compatibility.
Attached is the same patch of [1].

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220728105134.d5ce51dd756b3149e9b9c52c%40sraoss.co.jp

Regards,
Yugo Nagata

-- 
Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>