From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Oleg Bartunov <obartunov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: PG_RE_THROW is mandatory (was Re: jsonpath) |
Date: | 2019-02-06 16:23:41 |
Message-ID: | 20190206162341.3qjeuozdwy3dmp5a@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-02-06 13:09:59 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> In https://postgr.es/m/1676.1548726280@sss.pgh.pa.us Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Sure: every errcode we have is unsafe to treat this way.
> >
> > The backend coding rule from day one has been that a thrown error requires
> > (sub)transaction cleanup to be done to make sure that things are back in a
> > good state. You can *not* just decide that it's okay to ignore that,
> > especially not when invoking code outside the immediate area of what
> > you're doing.
>
> elog.h claims that PG_RE_THROW is "optional":
>
> /*----------
> * API for catching ereport(ERROR) exits. Use these macros like so:
> *
> * PG_TRY();
> * {
> * ... code that might throw ereport(ERROR) ...
> * }
> * PG_CATCH();
> * {
> * ... error recovery code ...
> * }
> * PG_END_TRY();
> *
> * (The braces are not actually necessary, but are recommended so that
> * pgindent will indent the construct nicely.) The error recovery code
> * can optionally do PG_RE_THROW() to propagate the same error outwards.
>
> This is obviously wrong; while we have a couple of codesites that omit
> it, it's not a generally available coding pattern. I think we should
> amend that comment. I propose: "The error recovery code must normally
> do PG_RE_THROW() to propagate the error outwards; failure to do so may
> leave the system in an inconsistent state for further processing."
Well, but it's ok not to rethrow if you do a [sub]transaction
rollback. I assume that's why it's framed as optional. We probably
should reference that fact?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-06 16:26:58 | Re: PG_RE_THROW is mandatory (was Re: jsonpath) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2019-02-06 16:23:22 | Re: Bogus lateral-reference-propagation logic in create_lateral_join_info |