| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #19494: Error on transaction commit inside pipeline triggers psql's Assert |
| Date: | 2026-05-28 05:26:06 |
| Message-ID: | ahfR7s1ZXC6MSC0i@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Thu, May 28, 2026 at 12:51:38PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> I am completely sure yet, but it looks like we will need to be smarter
> with the handling of the number of piped commands by tracking them
> across the syncs in the shape of a queue, or something like that? So
> it feels like we need to think harder about the tracking of this
> activity depending on the state of the pipeline we're in. Or we could
> lift some of these assertions, but that would not be right to me.
Hmm. Taking a step back this would be overcomplicating things. As
long as we are careful to consume the synced results still in a
pipeline, it looks like we should be fine. While digging into it, I
have found a third assertion that was triggerable with
available_results at the end of the pipeline, once I began mixing
\getresults with a deferred error.
This stuff is tricky enough that I may not have overseen all the
patterns possible, of course, at least this is progress.
Alexander, what do you think?
--
Michael
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-psql-Fix-failures-with-deferred-errors-in-pipelines.patch | text/plain | 7.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2026-05-28 05:29:43 | BUG #19499: Extensions Powa and Powa-archivist are missing in official download repository |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2026-05-28 03:51:38 | Re: BUG #19494: Error on transaction commit inside pipeline triggers psql's Assert |