From: | fn ln <emuser20140816(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: BUG #15977: Inconsistent behavior in chained transactions |
Date: | 2019-08-29 12:35:43 |
Message-ID: | CA+99BHrbigiWkM5Sss3fia24t=UdXHgsCLsNjotPsbsCV7ZcHA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
transaction_read_only must be 'on' because AND CHAIN test sets the
default_transaction_read_only to 'on'.
Failure of this test means that the transaction was chained from an
implicit transaction, which is not our desired behavior.
Perhaps you are using a wrong binary?
2019年8月29日(木) 21:10 Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>:
>
> Hello,
>
> > Added two kinds of test for the implicit transaction: in single query and
> > in implicit block.
>
> Ok.
>
> > The patch file is now created with Unix-style line ending (LF).
>
> Thanks.
>
> Patch applies and compiles cleanly. However, "make check" is not ok
> on the added tests.
>
> SHOW transaction_read_only;
> transaction_read_only
> -----------------------
> - on
> + off
>
> ISTM that the run is right and the patch test output is wrong, i.e. the
> transaction_read_only is expected to stay as is.
>
> --
> Fabien.
>
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-08-29 13:01:11 | Re: BUG #15977: Inconsistent behavior in chained transactions |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2019-08-29 12:10:06 | Re: BUG #15977: Inconsistent behavior in chained transactions |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Demidov | 2019-08-29 12:55:17 | pg_resetwal and --wal-segsize |
Previous Message | Anastasia Lubennikova | 2019-08-29 12:13:39 | Re: [HACKERS] [WIP] Effective storage of duplicates in B-tree index. |