Re: BUG #18656: "STABLE" function sometimes does not see changes
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: panso8@gmail.com
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Date: 2024-10-15T17:51:15Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs
Attachments
- bug-18656-draft-fix.patch (text/x-diff) patch
PG Bug reporting form <noreply@postgresql.org> writes: > CREATE or replace PROCEDURE stbl_update_state() > LANGUAGE plpgsql AS > $$ > declare > s text; > begin > update stbl_states set state='on' where id=1; > s := stbl_get_state(1); > call stbl_log(s); > call stbl_log(stbl_get_state(1)); > insert into stbl_logs(log) values (stbl_get_state(1)); > exception when others then > s := SQLERRM; > call stbl_log(s); > end; > $$; > [ the second stbl_get_state call produces the wrong result ] This seems closely related to 2dc1deaea, but that didn't fix it. The key difference between this example and the tests added by 2dc1deaea is that the problematic CALL is inside an exception block. After some study I propose that the correct fix is that _SPI_execute_plan should act as though we're inside an atomic context if IsSubTransaction(). We are inside an atomic context so far as _SPI_commit and _SPI_rollback are concerned: they will not allow you to COMMIT/ROLLBACK. So it's not very clear why _SPI_execute_plan should think differently. The attached draft patch also makes SPI_inside_nonatomic_context say we're in an atomic context if IsSubTransaction(). That's a no-op so far as the one extant caller StartTransaction is concerned, because we won't get there when inside a subtransaction. But it seems like all the places that consult _SPI_current->atomic ought to be doing this the same way. Thoughts? regards, tom lane
Commits
-
Further refine _SPI_execute_plan's rule for atomic execution.
- c96de42c4b5f 18.0 landed
- cf1443d675c5 12.21 landed
- ab13c46ff431 14.14 landed
- 0d83ced3c91b 13.17 landed
- b5eef75391c8 17.1 landed
- b35231989524 15.9 landed
- 25d639eea043 16.5 landed