Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jelte Fennema-Nio
Subject Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block
Date
Msg-id CAGECzQQS1Oun40BssQDmuHc86teXqr+LOndy5NSVdFce9evZvQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block  (Jelte Fennema-Nio <postgres@jeltef.nl>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, 27 Nov 2024 at 01:42, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
> I've edited the whole, added this extra test based on \syncpipeline in
> 17~, kept the remaining tests in 14~ where pgbench is able to handle
> them, and backpatched that down to 13.  Let's see now what we can do
> with the psql bits.

FYI: it turns out this change broke one of the tests on our pg_duckdb
repo[1] because the error message that PreventInTranasctionBlock
throws is now different:

E AssertionError: Regex pattern did not match.
E Regex: 'DuckDB queries cannot be executed within a pipeline'
E Input: 'DuckDB queries cannot run inside a transaction block'

I personally don't think that's particularly bad, or revert-worthy,
but the previous error was a bit clearer IMO. I don't see how we can
still show it with the new code though.

[1]: https://github.com/duckdb/pg_duckdb/actions/runs/12052926038/job/33607381526?pr=453#step:15:51



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: Don't overwrite scan key in systable_beginscan()
Next
From: Justin Pryzby
Date:
Subject: Re: Don't overwrite scan key in systable_beginscan()