| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Anthonin Bonnefoy <anthonin(dot)bonnefoy(at)datadoghq(dot)com>, Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres(at)jeltef(dot)nl>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block |
| Date: | 2024-11-27 21:20:10 |
| Message-ID: | Z0eNCq5kRJ73jBod@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 03:54:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I'm very surprised that this was back-patched. I think we should
> > revert it from the back-branches before it gets into a minor release.
> > It seems like a clear definitional change, which has no business in a
> > minor release.
>
> I was troubled by that too. Maybe this can be painted as a bug fix
> but it seems very questionable --- and even if it is, is it worth
> the risk of unexpected side-effects? I'd rather see something that
> touches wire-protocol behavior go through a normal beta test cycle.
Yeah, I was surprised too, even though the author was clear they wanted
to backpatch. I couldn't figure out why it was being backpatched, so I
figured I was missing something.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> https://momjian.us
EDB https://enterprisedb.com
When a patient asks the doctor, "Am I going to die?", he means
"Am I going to die soon?"
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jelte Fennema-Nio | 2024-11-27 21:28:06 | Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2024-11-27 21:05:47 | Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart |