Horton

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

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>, Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>, Dmitry Koval <d.koval@postgrespro.ru>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, andrewbille@gmail.com, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>
Date: 2022-09-26T10:59:47Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs 
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 12:16:24AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Yeah, but why?  I see no good reason why those fields need to be first.

> My reasoning on these ones is that we are most likely going to add
> more description flags in the future than new unit types.  Perhaps I
> am wrong.

Sure, but we could easily leave unused bits there.  Aligning the
units subfields on byte boundaries might result in slightly better
machine code, anyway.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Renumber GUC flags for a bit more sanity.

  2. Introduce GUC_NO_RESET flag.