On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 16:13:30 +0800
Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, all transactions are processed, there is no failure, I think that is expected, because syncpipeline should
rollbackfailures, so that all script should succeed.
>
> Feels to me like, because of introducing the new discardAvailableResults(), we need to make different fixes for
masterand old branches.
I understand your claim that scripts rolled back by \syncpipeline should
be considered successful. However, I believe treating them as failed
transactions is the expected behavior in pgbench, since it assumes that
a transaction script contains only one transaction, as described in the
documentation [1].
The following script:
\startpipeline
<queries list 1>
\syncpipeline
<queries list 2>
\endpipeline
can be considered equivalent to:
BEGIN;
<queries list 1>
END;
BEGIN;
<queries list 2>
END;
with respect to the scope of queries rolled back.
In the latter script, an error (such as a deadlock or serialization failure)
in any query is recorded as a failed transaction in the current pgbench, even
if part of the script has already been committed.
Therefore, the same behavior would be expected for the former script using a
pipeline.
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/pgbench.html#FAILURES-AND-RETRIES
Regards,
Yugo Nagata
--
Yugo Nagata <nagata@sraoss.co.jp>
