Re: alternative to PG_CATCH

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: alternative to PG_CATCH
Date: 2019-11-07 09:09:33
Message-ID: 538cbf41-c2f6-7e66-9770-df81c3e5a2d4@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-11-06 15:49, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On 2019-11-04 16:01, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Now that I've actually looked at the patched code, there's a far
>>> more severe problem with it. Namely, that use of PG_FINALLY
>>> means that the "finally" segment is run without having popped
>>> the error context stack, which means that any error thrown
>>> within that segment will sigsetjmp right back to the top,
>>> resulting in an infinite loop. (Well, not infinite, because
>>> it'll crash out once the error nesting depth limit is hit.)
>>> We *must* pop the stack before running recovery code.
>
>> I can confirm that that indeed happens. :(
>
>> Here is a patch to fix it.
>
> This seems all right from here. Since PG_RE_THROW() is guaranteed
> noreturn, I personally wouldn't have bothered with an "else" after it,
> but that's just stylistic.

Committed, without the "else".

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Julien Rouhaud 2019-11-07 09:20:17 Re: Collation versioning
Previous Message btkimurayuzk 2019-11-07 09:09:00 Re: Resume vacuum and autovacuum from interruption and cancellation