[tarantool-patches] Re: [PATCH] sql: update ptr to VDBE after its creation in sql_txn

[n.pettik]

>> diff --git a/test/sql/transitive-transactions.result b/test/sql/transitive-transactions.result
>> index 883cc00f6..ee9b4218d 100644
>> --- a/test/sql/transitive-transactions.result
>> +++ b/test/sql/transitive-transactions.result
>> @@ -134,3 +134,31 @@ box.execute('DROP TABLE parent;');
>> ---
>> - row_count: 1
>> ...
>> +-- gh-4157: autoincrement within transaction started in SQL
>> +-- leads to seagfault.
>> +--
>> +box.execute('CREATE TABLE t (id INT PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT);');
>> +---
>> +- row_count: 1
>> +...
>> +box.execute('START TRANSACTION')
>> +box.execute('INSERT INTO t VALUES (null), (null);')
>> +box.execute('INSERT INTO t VALUES (null), (null);')
>> +box.execute('SAVEPOINT sp;')
>> +box.execute('INSERT INTO t VALUES (null);')
>> +box.execute('ROLLBACK TO sp;')
>> +box.execute('INSERT INTO t VALUES (null);')
>> +box.commit();
>> +---
>> +...
>> +box.space.T:select();
>> +---
>> +- - [1]
>> +  - [2]
>> +  - [3]
>> +  - [4]
>> +  - [6]
>> +...
>> +box.space.T:drop();
> 
> Why so huge test? I see that you have 4-line test in
> the issue. Maybe it would be simpler to use it? In the
> test above savepoints confuse me.

As test cases shows - we don’t have tests involving insertions
to auto-increment field within transaction. So, I just wanted to
make sure that savepoints are working as well. If you wan’t,
I can make this test be 2-lines-like. 

> 
>> +---
>> +...
> 
> Just in case somebody doubts that Vdbe in txn was
> necessary and even forced by Kostja (who of course
> has already forgot it and proposes contradictory
> things again), I paste here Kostja's answer on the
> original patchset:
> 
> """
>    We're going to do a lot of integration of box and vdbe - triggers,
>    constraints, etc, so I think this patch is on track from architecture
>    point of view as well, we will need to access vdbe from box increasingly
>    more as we progress along with the integration.
> """
>