On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 03:49:37PM +0200, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
> On 6 October 2014 14:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > That's a good catch and it should be a separate patch. This could even be
> > considered for a back-patch down to 9.2. Thoughts?
>
> If I isolate "DROP INDEX concurrently", thi
On 10/7/14, 2:11 AM, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
On 7 October 2014 01:41, Jim Nasby wrote:
>The options I see...
>
>1) If there's a definitive way to tell from backend source code what
>commands disallow transactions then we can just use that information to
>generate the list of commands psql shou
On 7 October 2014 09:55, Marko Tiikkaja wrote:
> It's not clear to me that this is fixing a problem, to be honest. If you're
> running autocommit=off, you have an expectation that you can roll back
> commands at will. It's fine if I can't roll back a VACUUM, for example,
> since I would practica
On 10/7/14, 9:11 AM, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
Perhaps I am the only one using autocommit-off mode
You most definitely aren't.
and we shouldn't put effort
into fixing this?
It's not clear to me that this is fixing a problem, to be honest. If
you're running autocommit=off, you have an expec
Apologies for the previous message, I didn't send the full version.
On 6 October 2014 16:01, Tom Lane wrote:
> What class of bug would that prevent exactly?
ERROR: [...] cannot run inside a transaction block
when:
- running psql in AUTOCOMMIT off
- not having started a transaction yet
Current
On 10/6/14, 9:59 AM, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
It would test that when setting AUTOCOMMIT to off that you will not run into:
ERROR: [...] cannot run inside a transaction block
when issuing one of these PreventTransactionChain commands. In
src/bin/psql/common.c
Yes, but what happens when a new
It would test that when setting AUTOCOMMIT to off that you will not run into:
ERROR: [...] cannot run inside a transaction block
when issuing one of these PreventTransactionChain commands. In
src/bin/psql/common.c
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make ch
Feike Steenbergen writes:
> I would like to propose to add a regression test for all statements
> that call PreventTransactionChain in autocommit-off mode.
What class of bug would that prevent exactly? It seems to me like
something that would normally get forgotten when we add any new
such state
On 6 October 2014 14:09, Michael Paquier wrote:
> That's a good catch and it should be a separate patch. This could even be
> considered for a back-patch down to 9.2. Thoughts?
If I isolate "DROP INDEX concurrently", this patch would do the trick.
20141006_drop_index_concurrently.patch
Descript
On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Feike Steenbergen <
feikesteenber...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would like to propose to add a regression test for all statements
> that call PreventTransactionChain in autocommit-off mode. I propose to
> add these tests to src/test/regress/sql/psql.sql as this is a
> ps
Hi all,
Lately I have come across two inconveniences/bugs related to running
the autocommit-off mode in psql.
These are:
- BUG #11524: Unable to add value to ENUM when having AUTOCOMMIT
disabled in psql
- BUG #10822: "ALTER SYSTEM cannot run inside a transaction block"
when having autocommit disa
11 matches
Mail list logo
