From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
cc: 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
In-reply-to: <20221109190114.b820cb610cbc23d5ec281eb8@sraoss.co.jp>
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>
 <20220930102342.852ad903b9c0418048c07fe5@sraoss.co.jp>
 <3032689.1667757257@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20221109190114.b820cb610cbc23d5ec281eb8@sra!
 oss.co.jp>
Comments: In-reply-to Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
	message dated "Wed, 09 Nov 2022 19:01:14 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <3993441.1668010649.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2022 11:17:29 -0500
Message-ID: <3993442.1668010649@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/3993442.1668010649%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp> writes:
> Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> What do you think of the attached wording?

> It looks good to me. That describes the expected behaviour exactly.

Pushed that, then.

>> I don't think the pipeline angle is of concern to anyone who might be
>> reading these comments with the aim of understanding what guarantees
>> they have.  Perhaps there should be more about that in the user-facing
>> docs, though.

> I agree with that we don't need to mention pipelining in these comments,
> and that we need more in the documentation. I attached a doc patch to add
> a mention of commands that do internal commit to the pipelining section.
> Also, this adds a reference for the pipelining protocol to the libpq doc.

Hmm ... I don't really find either of these changes to be improvements.
The fact that, say, multi-table ANALYZE uses multiple transactions
seems to me to be a property of that statement, not of the protocol.

			regards, tom lane