| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: chained transactions |
| Date: | 2019-03-18 10:15:34 |
| Message-ID: | 05b14a9b-c2bb-aadb-e5f7-c53c2913c1cc@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Updated patch. I have squashed the two previously separate patches
together in this one.
On 2019-01-06 15:14, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I do not understand the value of the SAVEPOINT in the tests.
The purpose of the SAVEPOINT in the test is because it exercises
different switch cases in CommitTransactionCommand() and
AbortCurrentTransaction(). It's not entirely comprehensible from the
outside, but code coverage analysis confirms it.
> Otherwise I'm okay with this patch.
>
> About the second patch, I'm still unhappy with functions named commit &
> rollback doing something else, which result in somehow strange code, where
> you have to guess that the transaction is restarted in all cases, either
> within the commit function or explicitely.
I have updated the SPI interface with your suggestions. I agree it's
better that way.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v5-0001-Transaction-chaining.patch | text/plain | 35.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-03-18 10:22:40 | Re: chained transactions |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2019-03-18 10:15:12 | Re: pg_basebackup ignores the existing data directory permissions |