Ref. bpo-33376 and bpo-10513.

Quoting from the SQLite 3.7.11 changelog[1]:
"Pending statements no longer block ROLLBACK. Instead, the pending statement will return SQLITE_ABORT upon next access after the ROLLBACK."

Quoting from the SQLite 3.8.7.2 changelog[2]:
"Enhance the ROLLBACK command so that pending queries are allowed to continue as long as the schema is unchanged. Formerly, a ROLLBACK would cause all pending queries to fail with an SQLITE_ABORT or SQLITE_ABORT_ROLLBACK error. That error is still returned if the ROLLBACK modifies the schema."

Quoting from the SQLite docs[3]:
"In more recent versions of SQLite, the ROLLBACK will proceed and pending statements will often be aborted, causing them to return an SQLITE_ABORT or SQLITE_ABORT_ROLLBACK error. In SQLite version 3.8.8 (2015-01-16) and later, a pending read will continue functioning after the ROLLBACK as long as the ROLLBACK does not modify the database schema."

I've done some tests with SQLite versions 3.35.4 and 3.7.15 where I've removed the call to pysqlite_do_all_statements() (introduced by [4]) in pysqlite_connection_rollback_impl(), and I've also removed the pysqlite_Cursor.reset member and all of the related code. The test suite passes fine (except for, as expected, the two tests that check for InterfaceError in case of fetch across rollback).

Do we really need to special case rollbacks anymore? I've tried to come up with tests that prove this approach wrong, but I haven't found any yet.

[1] https://sqlite.org/changes.html#version_3_7_11
[2] https://sqlite.org/changes.html#version_3_8_7_2
[3] https://www.sqlite.org/lang_transaction.html
[4] ghaering/pysqlite@95f0956

Quoting pysqlite commit 5a009ed message (ghaering/pysqlite@5a009ed):
"Implemented a function that resets all statements in the connection's
statement cache. After calling this function it is always possible to
rollback a transaction or close a connection."

The commit is from 2005-12-09. SQLite 3.7.11 wasn't released until 2012, so in 2005 any pending statements would block a rollback. I'm guessing commit 5a009ed addressed that issue.

The effect of PR 26026 is that InterfaceError is no longer raised for fetch across rollback; instead it is up to SQLite how to handle this:

• for some cases, SQLITE_ABORT or SQLITE_ABORT_ROLLBACK may be returned, which will result in an OperationalError (accompanied by a nice error message provided by SQLite)
• for other cases, no error is returned; the operation is allowed and succeeds as expected
• for yet other cases, no error is returned, and the operation was rolled back

A NEWS entry should mention the change in behaviour, but I can't see how it would break existing projects; the current code disallows fetch across rollback (InterfaceError), so any problematic code would have been found, handled and fixed during debugging.

I've crafted a number of rollback tests, but it occurred to me that they are simply just testing SQLite behaviour; not sqlite3 behaviour. I had to adjust the tests according to which version of SQLite was used (for example 3.8.7.2 introduced new behaviour). Such tests are bound to break as SQLite evolves. I'm not sure we want such tests in our test suite; it can make the CI fail for completely unrelated PRs. Suggesting to leave detailed rollback testing to SQLite and just keep a couple of basic tests in our suite.

Berker, does this look ok to you?

I think this change is no problem.
Erlend E. Aasland's explanation is very clear.

There is only one situation that a problem may occur. Write code with SQLite 3.8.7.2+ (2014-11-18), and run it on 3.7.15 (2012-12-12) ~ 3.8.7.1-, but this situation may be difficult to happen, we can note this situation in doc.

More securely, if run on SQLite 3.8.7.1-, and encounter SQLITE_ABORT_ROLLBACK error code, a prompt can be given to explain the reason.

Also note that the current main branch is buggy. If don't adopt this change or revert this change later, don't forget to fix the bug of msg407185 (pysqlite_Statement.in_use flag is not reset).

I think this change is no problem.

Thanks, and thank you for looking reviewing this change.

There is only one situation that a problem may occur. Write code with SQLite
3.8.7.2+ (2014-11-18), and run it on 3.7.15 (2012-12-12) ~ 3.8.7.1-, but
this situation may be difficult to happen, we can note this situation in
doc.

How realistic is this scenario? If you compile with, for example 3.14.0 or newer, you'd link with sqlite3_trace_v2, not sqlite3_trace, so the loader would prevent you from running with anything pre 3.14. AFAIK, we've never had such problems.

More securely, if run on SQLite 3.8.7.1-, and encounter
SQLITE_ABORT_ROLLBACK error code, a prompt can be given to explain the
reason.

You already get both an error message, an (extended) error code. That should be sufficient.

Also note that the current main branch is buggy. If don't adopt this change
or revert this change later, don't forget to fix the bug of msg407185
(pysqlite_Statement.in_use flag is not reset).

It is a change of behaviour of the internal machinery. Does the change lead to wrong results (duplicate rows, wrong rows returned, no rows returned)? Corrupted/garbage data? Non-deterministic behaviour? Does any of the API's provided by sqlite3 not behave according to the documentation anymore?

NB: I plan to get rid of the in_use flag long before the beta sets in.

How realistic is this scenario? If you compile with, for example 3.14.0 or
newer, you'd link with sqlite3_trace_v2, not sqlite3_trace, so the loader
would prevent you from running with anything pre 3.14. AFAIK, we've never
had such problems.

I mean, after this change, different versions of SQLite will behave differently. And give a message for SQLITE_ABORT_ROLLBACK to explain this problem.

It is a change of behaviour of the internal machinery. Does the change lead
to wrong results (duplicate rows, wrong rows returned, no rows returned)?
Corrupted/garbage data? Non-deterministic behaviour? Does any of the API's
provided by sqlite3 not behave according to the documentation anymore?

It just leaks resource, apart from this, there seems to be no problem.

I mean, after this change, different versions of SQLite will behave differently.

Yes, this is explained in the news item:

Fetch across rollback no longer raises :exc:`~sqlite3.InterfaceError`.
Instead we leave it to the SQLite library to handle these cases.

And give a message for SQLITE_ABORT_ROLLBACK to explain this problem.

I'm not sure this is a good idea; I believe letting the underlying SQLite library explain the error is better than trying to deduce stuff based on what was known at compile time and what we know at runtime.

It just leaks resource, apart from this, there seems to be no problem.

Can you provide a reproducer? We've run this change through the ref. leak bots, and they are all green, so if there's a ref. leak, the test suite needs improvements.

Imagine a person write a code with Python 3.11 and SQLite 3.8.7.2+, and then deploying it to Python 3.11 and SQLite 3.8.7.1-, error may occur. However, this situation is difficult to happen.

Can you provide a reproducer? We've run this change through the ref.
leak bots, and they are all green, so if there's a ref. leak, the
test suite needs improvements.

The statement in cache will be never reused. If you don't mind, it's not a big problem.

Imagine a person write a code with Python 3.11 and SQLite 3.8.7.2+, and then
deploying it to Python 3.11 and SQLite 3.8.7.1-, error may occur. However,
this situation is difficult to happen.

Yes, I also think this is a far fetched case. I'll see if there's an easy way to handle this. If there isn't, I'm not sure the added complexity will be worth it.

The statement in cache will be never reused.

That is not necessarily correct; if the "problematic cursor" executes a new statement, the statement in the cache will be reset, thus it can be reused. Also, if the "problematic cursor" is closed (or deleted), the statement can also be reused. But, if the "problematic cursor" just gets stale and is _never_ used again, it may be a performance issue if it is a hot statement. But, as soon as I can land my changes related to the in_use flag, this will not be an issue anyway.

If the special rollback handling is removed, the behavior of Connection.rollback() and 'ON CONFLICT ROLLBACK' clause will be consistent.
See attached file on_conflict_rollback.py.

New changeset 9d6a239 by Erlend Egeberg Aasland in branch 'main':
bpo-44092: Don't reset statements/cursors before rollback (GH-26026)
9d6a239

Reopening; there's some clean-up left.

After #70214, the reset member of pysqlite_Cursor is now unused. We can remove it and all related code. PR coming.

New changeset f1a5844 by Erlend Egeberg Aasland in branch 'main':
bpo-44092: Remove unused member reset from sqlite3.Cursor (GH-30377)
f1a5844

New changeset a09062c by Erlend Egeberg Aasland in branch 'main':
bpo-44092: Move What's New entry to where it belongs (GH-30381)
a09062c