From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Mats Kindahl <mats(at)timescale(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Is SPI + Procedures (with COMMIT) inside a bgworker broken? |
Date: | 2021-09-13 19:30:19 |
Message-ID: | 477877.1631561419@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= <fabriziomello(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> I'm trying to execute a PROCEDURE (with COMMIT inside) called from a
> background worker using SPI but I'm always getting the error below:
> 2021-09-13 09:36:43.571 -03 [23846] ERROR: invalid transaction termination
The direct cause of that is that SPI_execute() doesn't permit the called
query to perform COMMIT/ROLLBACK, which is because most callers would fail
to cope with that. You can instruct SPI to allow that by replacing the
SPI_execute() call with something like
SPIExecuteOptions options;
...
memset(&options, 0, sizeof(options));
options.allow_nonatomic = true;
ret = SPI_execute_extended(buf.data, &options);
However, that's not enough to make this example work :-(.
I find that it still fails inside the procedure's COMMIT,
with
2021-09-13 15:14:54.775 EDT worker_spi[476310] ERROR: portal snapshots (0) did not account for all active snapshots (1)
2021-09-13 15:14:54.775 EDT worker_spi[476310] CONTEXT: PL/pgSQL function schema4.counted_proc() line 1 at COMMIT
SQL statement "CALL "schema4"."counted_proc"()"
I think what this indicates is that worker_spi_main's cavalier
management of the active snapshot isn't up to snuff for this
use-case. The error is coming from ForgetPortalSnapshots, which
is expecting that all active snapshots are attached to Portals;
but that one isn't.
Probably the most appropriate fix is to make worker_spi_main
set up a Portal to run the query inside of. There are other
bits of code that are not happy if they're not inside a Portal,
so if you're hoping to run arbitrary SQL this way, sooner or
later you're going to have to cross that bridge.
(I remain of the opinion that replication/logical/worker.c
is going to have to do that eventually, too...)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-09-13 20:09:26 | Re: Multiple hosts in connection string failed to failover in non-hot standby mode |
Previous Message | Bossart, Nathan | 2021-09-13 18:49:16 | Re: Estimating HugePages Requirements? |