Re: BUG #15977: Inconsistent behavior in chained transactions

On Thu, Sep 05, 2019 at 02:11:35PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2019-09-05 14:16:11 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> I'm content with this patch.
>
> Would need tests.

The latest patch sends adds coverage for all the new code paths
added.  Do you have something else in mind?

>> Better disable questionable cases now and maybe re-enable them later
>> if someone wants to make a case for it.
>
> I do think the fact that COMMIT in multi-statement implicit transaction
> has some usecase, is an argument for just implementing it properly...

Like Peter, I would also keep an ERROR for now, as we could always
relax that later on.

Looking at the latest patch, the comment blocks on top of TBLOCK_STARTED
and TBLOCK_IMPLICIT_INPROGRESS in EndTransactionBlock() need an update
to mention the difference of behavior with chained transactions.  And
the same comment rework should be done in UserAbortTransactionBlock()
for TBLOCK_IMPLICIT_INPROGRESS/TBLOCK_STARTED?
--
Michael