On Wed, 09 Nov 2022 11:38:05 -0500 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@enterprisedb.com> writes: > > This has broken the following use: > > > parse: create temporary table t1 (a int) on commit drop > > bind > > execute > > parse: analyze t1 > > bind > > execute > > parse: select * from t1 > > bind > > execute > > sync > > > I think the behavior of IsInTransactionBlock() needs to be further > > refined to support this. > > Hmm. Maybe the right way to think about this is "if we have completed an > EXECUTE, and not yet received a following SYNC, then report that we are in > a transaction block"? But I'm not sure if that breaks any other cases. Or, in that case, regarding it as an implicit transaction if multiple commands are executed in a pipeline as proposed in [1] could be another solution, although I have once withdrawn this for not breaking backward compatibility. Attached is the same patch of [1]. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220728105134.d5ce51dd756b3149e9b9c52c%40sraoss.co.jp Regards, Yugo Nagata -- Yugo NAGATA <nag...@sraoss.co.jp>
