Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oC9KK-0007LA-Ra for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:37:04 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oC9KH-0002dc-Tz for pgsql-bugs@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:37:01 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oC9KH-0002ck-E2 for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:37:01 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1oC9KC-0006dp-Je for pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 15 Jul 2022 00:36:57 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 26F0as2L3190752; Thu, 14 Jul 2022 20:36:54 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Bruce Momjian cc: nagata@sraoss.co.jp, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: BUG #17434: CREATE/DROP DATABASE can be executed in the same transaction with other commands In-reply-to: References: <17434-d9f7a064ce2a88a3@postgresql.org> Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian message dated "Thu, 14 Jul 2022 19:49:32 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3190750.1657845414.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2022 20:36:54 -0400 Message-ID: <3190751.1657845414@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Bruce Momjian writes: > Did we make any decision on this? Hmm, that one seems to have slipped past me. I agree it doesn't look good. But why isn't the PreventInTransactionBlock() check blocking the command from even starting? regards, tom lane