Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures
Date
Msg-id 461d5afd-fff0-7ca4-8e31-349615baaa50@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Transaction control in procedures
List pgsql-hackers
A merge conflict has arisen, so for simplicity, here is an updated patch.

On 12/20/17 10:08, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Updated patch attached.
> 
> I have addressed the most recent review comments I believe.
> 
> The question about what happens to cursor loops in PL/Perl and PL/Python
> would be addressed by the separate thread "portal pinning".  The test
> cases in this patch are currently marked by FIXMEs.
> 
> I have changed the SPI API a bit.  I got rid of SPI_set_nonatomic() and
> instead introduced SPI_connect_ext() that you can pass flags to.  The
> advantage of that is that in the normal case we can continue to use the
> existing memory contexts, so nothing changes for existing uses, which
> seems desirable.  (This also appears to address some sporadic test
> failures in PL/Perl.)
> 
> I have also cleaned up the changes in portalmem.c further, so the
> changes are now even smaller.
> 
> The commit message in this patch contains more details about some of
> these changes.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Condition variable live lock
Next
From: Jeff Janes
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Removing useless DISTINCT clauses