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: Wed, 09 Mar 2022 10:11:47 -0500
Message-ID: <515672.1646838707@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAD21AoD5MsR_GR5iipc8TnGa3grzQbPLpwZcSn8Fq2dZbar_6g@mail.gmail.com>
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>
	<CAD21AoCxz=hU3c+6aB3OMNn+9NpH33WEMwOYmCOwh6EzOktYoA@mail.gmail.com>
	<2778050.1644817168@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAD21AoAVuQ=TCCqA1D=eVqG3G_bKLq2zpNeYVV34Ucu2208Hmg@mail.gmail.com>
	<3054063.1644944122@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CAD21AoD5MsR_GR5iipc8TnGa3grzQbPLpwZcSn8Fq2dZbar_6g@mail.gmail.com>

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 1:55 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, I was considering that too.  A new GUC_NO_RESET flag would be
>> cheaper than running the check hooks during RESET, and probably
>> safer too.  On the other hand, we would lose the property that
>> you can reset these settings as long as you've not yet taken a
>> snapshot.  I wonder whether there is any code out there that
>> depends on that ...

> Indeed. I guess that it's relatively common that the transaction
> isolation level is set after BEGIN TRANSACTION but I've not heard that
> it's reset after BEGIN TRANSACTION with setting non-default
> transaction isolation level.

Yes, we certainly have to preserve the SET case, but using RESET
in that way seems like it'd be pretty weird coding.  I'd have no
hesitation about banning it in a HEAD-only change.  I'm slightly
more nervous about doing so in a back-patched bug fix.  On the
other hand, starting to call check hooks in a context that did
not use them before is also scary to back-patch.

Do you want to draft up a patch that fixes this with a new
GUC flag?

			regards, tom lane





view thread (44+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <515672.1646838707@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../515672.1646838707@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/515672.1646838707@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: <515672.1646838707@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