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

From Bruce Momjian
Subject Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block
Date
Msg-id Z0eNCq5kRJ73jBod@momjian.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 03:54:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'm very surprised that this was back-patched. I think we should
> > revert it from the back-branches before it gets into a minor release.
> > It seems like a clear definitional change, which has no business in a
> > minor release.
> 
> I was troubled by that too.  Maybe this can be painted as a bug fix
> but it seems very questionable --- and even if it is, is it worth
> the risk of unexpected side-effects?  I'd rather see something that
> touches wire-protocol behavior go through a normal beta test cycle.

Yeah, I was surprised too, even though the author was clear they wanted
to backpatch.  I couldn't figure out why it was being backpatched, so I
figured I was missing something.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce@momjian.us>        https://momjian.us
  EDB                                      https://enterprisedb.com

  When a patient asks the doctor, "Am I going to die?", he means 
  "Am I going to die soon?"



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart
Next
From: Jelte Fennema-Nio
Date:
Subject: Re: Changing shared_buffers without restart