From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Feike Steenbergen <feikesteenbergen(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Add regression tests for autocommit-off mode for psql and fix some omissions |
Date: | 2014-10-06 23:41:11 |
Message-ID: | 54332897.6010900@BlueTreble.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 10/6/14, 9:59 AM, Feike Steenbergen wrote:
> It would test that when setting AUTOCOMMIT to off that you will not run into:
>
> ERROR: [...] cannot run inside a transaction block
>
> when issuing one of these PreventTransactionChain commands. In
> src/bin/psql/common.c
Yes, but what happens when a new non-transaction command is added? If we forget to exclude it in psql, we'll certainly also forget to add it to the unit test.
The options I see...
1) If there's a definitive way to tell from backend source code what commands disallow transactions then we can just use that information to generate the list of commands psql shouldn't do that with.
2) Always run the regression test with auto-commit turned off.
3) Run the regression in both modes (presumably only on the build farm due to how long it would take).
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2014-10-06 23:47:53 | Re: Commitfest: patches Ready for Committer |
Previous Message | Ali Akbar | 2014-10-06 23:38:45 | Re: Add generate_series(numeric, numeric) |