Re: Odd query execution behavior with extended protocol

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Shay Rojansky <roji(at)roji(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Odd query execution behavior with extended protocol
Date: 2015-10-06 21:59:20
Message-ID: CA+TgmoauDvQDcqJ0TkjKi3qDcVveq5eJqYTi+5=z3H9MC-f8vg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> From looking at the code, it appears to me that if the Execute is run
>> to completion, then its results will be seen by future statements, but
>> if the portal is closed earlier, then not. See the end of
>> exec_execute_message. The handler for the Close message (inside
>> PostgresMain) doesn't seem to do anything that would result in a
>> CommandCounterIncrement() or CommitTransactionCommand().
>
>> This does seem a little strange.
>
> I dunno, if you close a portal before you've gotten CommandComplete,
> should you expect that all its actions were taken? Arguably, that
> should be more like a ROLLBACK.

I dunno either, but a rollback would undo everything, and a commit
would do everything. Ending up in a state where we've done some of it
but not all of it is strange. Being able to run an unbounded number
of commands without a CommandCounterIncrement is *really* strange.

I'm not very sure what to do about it, though.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew Dunstan 2015-10-06 21:59:23 Re: check fails on Fedora 23
Previous Message Tom Lane 2015-10-06 21:53:49 Re: Odd query execution behavior with extended protocol