| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Bugs <pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL FOR cursor variant |
| Date: | 2010-06-21 22:29:48 |
| Message-ID: | 4C1FE7DC.1020809@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 22/06/10 00:59, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of lun jun 21 17:47:43 -0400 2010:
>
>> Maybe it would be easier to somehow protect the portal then, and throw
>> an error if you try to close it. We could just mark the portal as
>> PORTAL_ACTIVE while we run the user statements, but that would also
>> forbid fetching or moving it. I'm thinking of a new "pinned" state,
>> which is like PORTAL_READY except that the portal can't be dropped like
>> in PORTAL_ACTIVE state.
>
> Why is it an error to close the portal?
What useful behavior ẃould you expect from closing it?
> Maybe we should keep it closed
> (i.e. don't free it), and error out only when it is accessed again.
I guess we could do that too, but it really doesn't make much sense to
close it in the first place.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-06-21 22:49:57 | Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL FOR cursor variant |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2010-06-21 21:59:25 | Re: Bug in PL/pgSQL FOR cursor variant |