On 2021/02/18 23:10, Vik Fearing wrote:
> On 2/18/21 2:58 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2021/02/17 3:03, Arthur Nascimento wrote:
>>> Hi, Fujii-san,
>>>
>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 01:49, Fujii Masao
>>> <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com> wrote:
>>>> In the server side, ISTM that CommitTransactionCommand() needs to handle
>>>> the COMMIT AND CHAIN in TBLOCK_SUBCOMMIT case, but it forgot to do that.
>>>> Patch attached. I'm not sure if this is a bug or an intentional
>>>> behavior.
>>>> Probably we need to look at the past discussion about AND CHAIN feature.
>>>
>>> I can confirm that your patch solved it for me. Thanks for looking
>>> into it.
>>
>> Thanks for testing the patch!
>>
>> As far as I read the past discussion about chain transaction,
>> I could not find any mention that current behavior that you reported
>> is intentional.
>>
>> Barring any objection, I will commit the patch that you wrote
>> for psql and the patch I wrote.
>
> No objection from me. According to the standard, a COMMIT should
> destroy all savepoints and terminate the transaction, even if AND CHAIN
> is specified.
You imply that the standard says that COMMIT AND CHAIN should just terminate
the transaction if there are savepoints defined, i.e., should not start new
transaction? Since I can (maybe wrongly) interpret your comment like that,
please let me confirm what the standard says just in case.
I was thinking that COMMIT AND CHAIN should destroy all the savepoints,
terminate the transaction and start new transaction with the same transaction
characteristics immediately.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
