On Wed, 09 Nov 2022 11:38:05 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> > This has broken the following use:
>
> > parse: create temporary table t1 (a int) on commit drop
> > bind
> > execute
> > parse: analyze t1
> > bind
> > execute
> > parse: select * from t1
> > bind
> > execute
> > sync
>
> > I think the behavior of IsInTransactionBlock() needs to be further
> > refined to support this.
>
> Hmm. Maybe the right way to think about this is "if we have completed an
> EXECUTE, and not yet received a following SYNC, then report that we are in
> a transaction block"? But I'm not sure if that breaks any other cases.
Or, in that case, regarding it as an implicit transaction if multiple commands
are executed in a pipeline as proposed in [1] could be another solution,
although I have once withdrawn this for not breaking backward compatibility.
Attached is the same patch of [1].
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220728105134.d5ce51dd756b3149e9b9c52c%40sraoss.co.jp
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo NAGATA <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>