Re: [PATCH] Hooks at XactCommand level

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
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.


In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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