| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [bug fix] Savepoint-related statements terminates connection |
| Date: | 2017-09-01 16:05:30 |
| Message-ID: | CANP8+jKyxD+8Uy2v7EuJkRhcH4Ti0Vp73Pk1YUaKovW00+WhSw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1 September 2017 at 15:19, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> I've added tests to the recent patch to show it works.
>
> I don't think those test cases prove anything (ie, they work fine
> on an unpatched server). With a backslash maybe they would.
>
>> Any objection to me backpatching this, please say.
>
> This patch makes me itch. Why is it correct for these three checks,
> and only these three checks out of the couple dozen uses of isTopLevel
> in standard_ProcessUtility, to instead do something else?
No problem, it was a quick fix, not a deep one.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-09-01 16:09:35 | Re: GnuTLS support |
| Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2017-09-01 16:00:03 | Re: log_destination=file |