From: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Gilles Darold <gilles(at)darold(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Takayuki Tsunakawa <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Hooks at XactCommand level |
Date: | 2021-03-20 10:33:24 |
Message-ID: | 20210320103324.4sd6gw4h2bjfaxbm@nol |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 11:02:29PM +0100, Gilles Darold wrote:
> Le 12/03/2021 à 06:55, Julien Rouhaud a écrit :
> >
>
> I don't think we need to pass any information at least for the rollback
> at statement level extension. All information needed are accessible and
> actually at abort_current_transaction_hook we only toggle a boolean to
> fire the rollback.
That's what I thought but I wanted to be sure.
So, I have nothing more to say about the patch itself. At that point, I guess
that we can't keep postponing that topic, and we should either:
- commit this patch, or Álvaro's one based on a new grammar keyword for BEGIN
(maybe without the GUC if that's the only hard blocker), assuming that there
aren't any technical issue with those
- reject this patch, and I guess set in stone that vanilla postgres will
never allow that.
Given the situation I'm not sure if I should mark the patch as Ready for
Committer or not. I'll leave it as-is for now as Álvaro is already in Cc.
> I have rebased the patch.
Thanks!
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-03-20 10:45:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-03-20 10:32:24 | Re: Logical Replication vs. 2PC |