Horton

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

Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com>
To: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, 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: 2022-06-28T06:58:41Z
Lists: pgsql-bugs

Attachments

On Tue, Jun 28, 2022 at 9:37 AM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 02:53:12PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > (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.)
>
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2022 at 11:23:57PM +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > Attached an updated patch. I kept the name GUC_NO_RESET but I'll
> > change it if we find a better name for it.
>
> I think guc.sql should check that NO_RESET implies NO_RESET_ALL, or otherwise
> guc.c could incorporate that logic by checking (NO_RESET | NO_RESET_ALL)

Agreed. I've attached an updated patch.

Regards,

-- 
Masahiko Sawada
EDB:  https://www.enterprisedb.com/

Commits

  1. Renumber GUC flags for a bit more sanity.

  2. Introduce GUC_NO_RESET flag.