pg.ddx.io  pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: 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, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2022 17:09:35 -0500
Message-ID: <2735166.1644790175@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2733419.1644789029@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <17385-9ee529fb091f0ce5@postgresql.org>
	<b22395d2-d432-f211-0bed-1f466df75152@postgrespro.ru>
	<CAD21AoCkwsb_Hz6JYbG0X8Jf_VEMheiib0FXpR2kc3UATVCPNQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFiTN-sYZ0Cuyeygp7z8xfoFPhqTAbtnV+k2W9OHp8s0xus5vw@mail.gmail.com>
	<f97d670d-2b03-9d47-6b64-09e6ed2f4d84@postgrespro.ru>
	<CAFiTN-sCr6mYg8A_BBiRz0N68M9QY3uoBWHhbPgHDM-goLJGwg@mail.gmail.com>
	<6e31c4ef-de9a-960b-1a21-e3b6ff0fa9c2@postgrespro.ru>
	<CAD21AoB8acvjt+52iwffAi7Ary_fyMD70X371hVX1JULrc-meQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<2733419.1644789029@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Hmm, here's a related anomaly:

regression=# BEGIN TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLE;
BEGIN
regression=*# savepoint foo;
SAVEPOINT
regression=*# RESET transaction_isolation;
RESET
regression=*# select 1;
 ?column? 
----------
        1
(1 row)

regression=*# show transaction_isolation;
 transaction_isolation 
-----------------------
 read committed
(1 row)

regression=*# rollback to foo;
ROLLBACK
regression=*# show transaction_isolation;
 transaction_isolation 
-----------------------
 serializable
(1 row)

regression=*# commit;
COMMIT

I'm not sure why that didn't fail, but it seems like it should've:
the commit-time isolation level is different from what we were
using when we took the first snapshot.  (Maybe we discard the
snapshot state when rolling back?  Not sure.)

If we need to be sure that it's always okay to roll back a
(sub)transaction, then that's an additional constraint on what's
valid for GUCs to do.  Yet it'd be a really bad idea to run
check_hooks during transaction rollback, so maybe there's little
choice.

			regards, tom lane





view thread (44+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <2735166.1644790175@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../2735166.1644790175@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/2735166.1644790175@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
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: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, sawada.mshk@gmail.com, d.koval@postgrespro.ru, dilipbalaut@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end
  In-Reply-To: <2735166.1644790175@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* 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