Re: statement_timeout vs DECLARE CURSOR - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: statement_timeout vs DECLARE CURSOR
Date
Msg-id 2873020.1632859041@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: statement_timeout vs DECLARE CURSOR  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-general
I wrote:
> Christophe Pettus <xof@thebuild.com> writes:
>> A bit more poking revealed the reason: The ON HOLD cursor's query is executed at commit time (which is, logically,
notinterruptible), but that's all wrapped in the single statement outside of a transaction. 

> Hmm ... seems like a bit of a UX failure.  I wonder why we don't persist
> such cursors before we get into the uninterruptible part of COMMIT.

Oh, I see the issue.  It's not that that part of COMMIT isn't
interruptible; you can control-C out of it just fine.  The problem
is that finish_xact_command() disarms the statement timeout before
starting CommitTransactionCommand at all.

We could imagine pushing the responsibility for that down into
xact.c, allowing it to happen after CommitTransaction has finished
running user-defined code.  But it seems like a bit of a mess
because there are so many other code paths there.  Not sure how
to avoid future bugs-of-omission.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Jeff Hoffmann
Date:
Subject: Re: Problem with identity column & related sequences
Next
From: Abhishek B
Date:
Subject: postgresql11: How to use publication/subscription on primary/standby setup