Re: BUG #17385: "RESET transaction_isolation" inside serializable transaction causes Assert at the transaction end

Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> writes:
> ERRCODE_FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED doesn't look proper for the case. Isn't
> it ERRCODE_OBJECT_NOT_IN_PREREQUISITE_STATE or something like?

Mmm ... I guess you could think of it that way, but it seems a
little weird, because you have to suppose that the *transaction*
not the GUC itself is the object that is in the wrong state.
We could use ERRCODE_ACTIVE_SQL_TRANSACTION as is done in
check_XactIsoLevel et al.  But this code is supposed to be generic,
and if there are ever any other GUCs marked NO_RESET, who's to say
if that would be appropriate at all for them?

I'm OK with FEATURE_NOT_SUPPORTED.

			regards, tom lane