| From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Koval <d(dot)koval(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, andrewbille(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end |
| Date: | 2022-06-28 00:37:20 |
| Message-ID: | 20220628003720.GG19662@telsasoft.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 02:53:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> (This does imply that it's not sensible to mark a variable
> GUC_NO_RESET without also saying GUC_NO_RESET_ALL. That
> seems fine to me, because I'm not sure what the combination
> GUC_NO_RESET & !GUC_NO_RESET_ALL ought to mean.)
On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:23:57PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> Attached an updated patch. I kept the name GUC_NO_RESET but I'll
> change it if we find a better name for it.
I think guc.sql should check that NO_RESET implies NO_RESET_ALL, or otherwise
guc.c could incorporate that logic by checking (NO_RESET | NO_RESET_ALL)
--
Justin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2022-06-28 04:42:39 | Re: Auto-vacuum timing out and preventing connections |
| Previous Message | Justin Pryzby | 2022-06-27 23:30:03 | Re: pg_upgrade (12->14) fails on aggregate |