| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables) |
| Date: | 2013-03-20 17:13:30 |
| Message-ID: | 6278.1363799610@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Daniel Farina <daniel(at)heroku(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:43 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Um ... you shouldn't need a PG_TRY for that at all. guc.c will take
>> care of popping the values on transaction abort --- that's really rather
>> the whole point of having that mechanism.
> Hmm, well, merely raising the error doesn't reset the GUCs, so I was
> rather thinking that this was a good idea to compose more neatly in
> the case of nested exception processing, e.g.:
In general, we don't allow processing to resume after an error until
transaction or subtransaction abort cleanup has been done. It's true
that if you look at the GUC state in a PG_CATCH block, you'll see it
hasn't been reset yet, but that's not very relevant.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-20 17:30:20 | Re: pg_upgrade segfaults when given an invalid PGSERVICE value |
| Previous Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-03-20 17:05:26 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Call for Google Summer of Code mentors, admins |