Re: BUG #17810: Update from 13.09 to 13.10 breaks SQLs with VACUUM
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #17810: Update from 13.09 to 13.10 breaks SQLs with VACUUM |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 415818.1677529276@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #17810: Update from 13.09 to 13.10 breaks SQLs with VACUUM ("David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #17810: Update from 13.09 to 13.10 breaks SQLs with VACUUM
Re: BUG #17810: Update from 13.09 to 13.10 breaks SQLs with VACUUM |
Список | pgsql-bugs |
"David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> writes: > As for your usage of "conn.setAutocommit(true)" - IIUC that is irrelevant > to this entire discussion. You've chosen to bundle up multiple statements > into a single Statement.execute(string) call which obeys the rules of the > simple query protocol - multiple statements: I doubt it. We closed the not-in-transaction-block loophole decades ago for simple query protocol. What's at stake here is what happens when a series of extended-protocol commands are given without Sync between them, which we interpret as a request to run them all in the same transaction. I'm a bit surprised that the JDBC driver is choosing to issue them that way, because it implies (at least) that it's parsing the string enough to break it down into separate SQL commands. But we'd not be having this conversation if that weren't happening. Anyway, that scenario *should* be subject to the same rules as multiple statements in one simple-query message, only it wasn't up till now. > Is there room for improved communication on the minor-release change in > behavior? Probably. Yeah, I wish I could have that release note back :-(. We don't really have any mechanism for updating release notes after the fact. I could go and fix it in the git repo, but nobody would see it until after the next quarterly releases which seems a bit too late. > As for discussing reverting this in the back-branches given new evidence > and scenarios, that is possible and I've yet to go back and fully review > that discussion thread in light of this new information. I think there's zero chance we'd revert the bug fix at this point. If we'd realized that the JDBC driver behaves this way, we might have debated a little harder about whether this really had to be fixed in the back branches --- but it's done now, and it is a bug fix. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: