Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)

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: Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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