Re: BUG #16867: savepoints vs. commit and chain
От | Fujii Masao |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #16867: savepoints vs. commit and chain |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 473dba6b-dfb3-b5a8-93c6-af3787893728@oss.nttdata.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #16867: savepoints vs. commit and chain (Arthur Nascimento <tureba@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #16867: savepoints vs. commit and chain
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 2021/02/16 6:47, Arthur Nascimento wrote: > On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 17:54, PG Bug reporting form > <noreply@postgresql.org> wrote: >> On a trivial transaction, I might do: >> >> =# begin; >> *=# commit and chain; >> *=# -- In this point I'm inside a second transaction > > I forgot to mention that this case also works as expected: > > =# begin; > *=# savepoint foo; > *=# release foo; > *=# commit and chain; > *=# -- In this point I'm also inside a second transaction > > So it's only the unmatched savepoint/release transactions that are an issue. > > I also attached the change I did to psql locally. LGTM. > But since it didn't > solve the issue, it's mostly for curiosity's sake. In the server side, ISTM that CommitTransactionCommand() needs to handle the COMMIT AND CHAIN in TBLOCK_SUBCOMMIT case, but it forgot to do that. Patch attached. I'm not sure if this is a bug or an intentional behavior. Probably we need to look at the past discussion about AND CHAIN feature. Regards, -- Fujii Masao Advanced Computing Technology Center Research and Development Headquarters NTT DATA CORPORATION
Вложения
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: