From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Suraj Kharage <suraj(dot)kharage(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: statement_timeout is not working as expected with postgres_fdw |
Date: | 2017-05-17 10:57:19 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1JNw0cqq4PGpMU1jszVRN9uWN=Xq-DYhTkWiJV1AgKAcw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, May 7, 2017 at 11:54 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm having second thoughts based on some more experimentation I did
>> this morning. I'll update again once I've had a bit more time to poke
>> at it.
>
> So the issue that I noticed here is that this problem really isn't
> confined to abort processing. If we ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT or ABORT
> TRANSACTION on an open connection, we really do not know what the
> state of that connection is until we get an acknowledgement that the
> command completed successfully. The patch handles that. However, the
> same is true if we're sending a SAVEPOINT or RELEASE SAVEPOINT
> command, and the patch that I posted doesn't do anything about those
> cases. I think it would be best to fix all transaction control
> commands in a symmetric manner.
>
+1. Why not similar behavior for any other statements executed in
this module by do_sql_command?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2017-05-17 10:58:29 | Re: Get stuck when dropping a subscription during synchronizing table |
Previous Message | Jeevan Ladhe | 2017-05-17 10:53:50 | remove unnecessary flag has_null from PartitionBoundInfoData |