From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
        Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>,
        Victor Yegorov <vyegorov@gmail.com>,
        Pierre Forstmann <pierre.forstmann@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Unexpected results from CALL and AUTOCOMMIT=off
In-reply-to: <Zl91WPpX2KElTZbb@nathan>
References: <CAGnEboiRe+fG2QxuBO2390F7P8e2MQ6UyBjZSL_w1Cej+E4=Vw@mail.gmail.com> <CAM-sOH80Z=OqYBWgYP=BDGLbxQ72wkC9=tZ-vRKxkmKkhTD7MQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAGnEbojf5Awm862ghvooLku6mm0m4yF60PyHQxCinM8pn01sbw@mail.gmail.com> <90052.1717442890@sss.pgh.pa.us> <378291.1717464748@sss.pgh.pa.us> <538151.1717525723@sss.pgh.pa.us> <Zl91WPpX2KElTZbb@nathan>
Comments: In-reply-to Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 04 Jun 2024 15:13:12 -0500"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <584364.1717533094.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 16:31:34 -0400
Message-ID: <584365.1717533094@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/584365.1717533094%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 04, 2024 at 02:28:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hence, new patch attached, now with docs and tests.  Barring
>> objections I'll push this one.

> Should we expand the documentation for SPI_connect_ext() to note that
> SPI_execute_extended()/SPI_execute_plan_extended() depend on the flag?

Perhaps.  They already did, in that the atomic flag was taken into
account while deciding how to handle a nested CALL; basically what this
fix does is to make sure that the snapshot handling is done the same
way.  I think that what I added to the docs is probably sufficient,
but I'll yield to majority opinion if people think not.

			regards, tom lane