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: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Koval <d.koval@postgrespro.ru>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, andrewbille@gmail.com, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-03-11T19:53:12Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs 
Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> writes:
> I've attached a draft patch for discussion.

Hm, I think that trying to RESET a GUC_NO_RESET variable ought to
actively throw an error.  Silently doing nothing will look like
a bug.

(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.)

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Renumber GUC flags for a bit more sanity.

  2. Introduce GUC_NO_RESET flag.