Hi Peter,
On 2018-06-10 21:06:59 +0200, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On 8 June 2018 at 06:20, Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Joe> My colleague Yogesh Sharma discovered an assert in nested SQL
> > Joe> procedure calls after ROLLBACK is used. Minimal test case and
> > Joe> backtrace below. I have not yet tried to figure out exactly what
> > Joe> is going on beyond seeing that it occurs in pg_plan_query() where
> > Joe> the comment says "Planner must have a snapshot in case it calls
> > Joe> user-defined functions"...
> >
> > Andrew> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/29608.1518533639@sss.pgh.pa.us
> >
> > I added it to the open items list since nobody else seems to have taken
> > notice; from Tom's linked message it seems this should be Peter E's bag?
>
> I've taken a look at this - indeed, the situation looks similar to what
> described in the linked message, namely after a transaction rollback and
> creation of a new one no active snapshot was pushed. But in this particular
> case the timeframe without an active snapshot is actually limited and includes
> only some initialization and planning activity (after that a new one is
> pushed). The commentary says that "Planner must have a snapshot in case it
> calls user-defined functions." - I tried to simulate this in order to see what
> would happen, but got no errors. Is there a chance that it's an outdated
> Assert?
This hasn't progressed in a while. Peter, since you committed the
relevant change, could you update us please?
Greetings,
Andres Freund