Hi Peter, On 2018-06-10 21:06:59 +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote: > > On 8 June 2018 at 06:20, Andrew Gierth <and...@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote: > > > Joe> My colleague Yogesh Sharma discovered an assert in nested SQL > > Joe> procedure calls after ROLLBACK is used. Minimal test case and > > Joe> backtrace below. I have not yet tried to figure out exactly what > > Joe> is going on beyond seeing that it occurs in pg_plan_query() where > > Joe> the comment says "Planner must have a snapshot in case it calls > > Joe> user-defined functions"... > > > > Andrew> > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/29608.1518533...@sss.pgh.pa.us > > > > I added it to the open items list since nobody else seems to have taken > > notice; from Tom's linked message it seems this should be Peter E's bag? > > I've taken a look at this - indeed, the situation looks similar to what > described in the linked message, namely after a transaction rollback and > creation of a new one no active snapshot was pushed. But in this particular > case the timeframe without an active snapshot is actually limited and includes > only some initialization and planning activity (after that a new one is > pushed). The commentary says that "Planner must have a snapshot in case it > calls user-defined functions." - I tried to simulate this in order to see > what > would happen, but got no errors. Is there a chance that it's an outdated > Assert?
This hasn't progressed in a while. Peter, since you committed the relevant change, could you update us please? Greetings, Andres Freund
