From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-lj1-f177.google.com (mail-lj1-f177.google.com
 [209.85.208.177])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by dev.tarantool.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9001A46970E
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:47:27 +0300 (MSK)
Received: by mail-lj1-f177.google.com with SMTP id z22so25477030ljg.1
 for <tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>;
 Thu, 16 Jan 2020 23:47:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:47:25 +0300
From: Konstantin Osipov <kostja.osipov@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20200117074725.GF24940@atlas>
References: <cover.1579211601.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
 <52419d26967890ace8245f46fdff0604f919a029.1579211601.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52419d26967890ace8245f46fdff0604f919a029.1579211601.git.v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Subject: Re: [Tarantool-patches] [PATCH v2 3/3] box: remove dead code from
	box_process_call/eval()
List-Id: Tarantool development patches <tarantool-patches.dev.tarantool.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/options/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.tarantool.org/pipermail/tarantool-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.tarantool.org/mailman/listinfo/tarantool-patches>, 
 <mailto:tarantool-patches-request@dev.tarantool.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org>
Cc: tarantool-patches@dev.tarantool.org

* Vladislav Shpilevoy <v.shpilevoy@tarantool.org> [20/01/17 00:57]:
> box_process_call/eval() in the end check if there is an
> active transaction. If there is, it is rolled back, and
> an error is set.
> 
> But rollback is not needed anymore, because anyway in
> the end of the request the fiber is stopped, and its
> not finished transaction is rolled back. Just setting
> of the error is enough.

(and lgtm)

This patch imho is necessary since it "seals" correctness of the
previous patch - if the previous patch is broken, after this
patch is applied, we're going to get assertion failures in
txn_init(). Very nice.

-- 
Konstantin Osipov, Moscow, Russia