Re: chained transactions

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: chained transactions
Date: 2018-12-26 12:32:56
Message-ID: 20181226123256.yew55jvrjbkcwk2x@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018-Dec-26, Fabien COELHO wrote:

> > > Copying & comparing nodes are updated. Should making, outing and reading
> > > nodes also be updated?
> >
> > TransactionStmt isn't covered by the node serialization functions, so I
> > didn't see anything to update. What did you have in mind?
> Sigh. I had in mind that the serialization feature would work with all
> possible nodes, not just some of them… which seems quite naïve. The whole
> make/copy/cmp/in/out functions depress me, all this verbose code should be
> automatically generated from struct declarations. I'm pretty sure there are
> hidden bugs in there.

There may well be, but keep in mind that the nodes that have out and
read support are used in view declarations and such (stored rules); they
are used pretty extensively. Nodes that cannot be part of stored rules
don't need to have read support.

Álvaro Herrera
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2018-12-26 12:38:56 Re: Feature: triggers on materialized views
Previous Message Daniel Verite 2018-12-26 12:28:06 Re: Alternative to \copy in psql modelled after \g