Re: Code checks for App Devs, using new options for transaction behavior

From: Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Erik Rijkers <er(at)xs4all(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Code checks for App Devs, using new options for transaction behavior
Date: 2022-11-07 14:25:48
Message-ID: CANbhV-GD3ofu5QNDvbDbVmrmfpEFC9rP_mFYgaek9qkcvTQNWg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 2 Nov 2022 at 07:40, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:

> > What will be the behavior if someone declares a savepoint with this
> > name ("_internal_nested_xact"). Will this interfere with this new
> > functionality?
>
> Clearly! I guess you are saying we should disallow them.
>
> > Have we tested scenarios like that?
>
> No, but that can be done.

More tests as requested, plus minor code rework, plus comment updates.

--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

Attachment Content-Type Size
002_nested_xacts.v10.patch application/octet-stream 28.7 KB
001_psql_parse_only.v1.patch application/octet-stream 2.1 KB
003_rollback_on_commit.v1.patch application/octet-stream 5.7 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karthik Jagadish (kjagadis) 2022-11-07 14:46:18 Re: Postgres auto vacuum - Disable
Previous Message vignesh C 2022-11-07 13:39:41 Re: Skipping schema changes in publication