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: 2022-09-27T13:56:57Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs 
Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> As we are talking about a description with GUC_ACTION_SAVE, something
> like "Parameters with this flag do not support RESET, or SET in the
> context of a function call"?  NO_RESET sounds a bit confusing as a
> name if you consider this second part (it can be understood as
> resetting the value as well), but keeping it as-is does not look like
> a big deal to me with this description, or an equivalent, in place.

Yeah, we already talked upthread about how the SAVE restriction makes
"NO_RESET" a bit of a misnomer.  Nobody proposed a better name though.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Renumber GUC flags for a bit more sanity.

  2. Introduce GUC_NO_RESET flag.