Re: Why does the PL/pgSQL compiler do this?

On 10/31/2016 06:09 PM, Michael Moore wrote:
> Thanks Adrian, but is ROLLBACK *_ever_* possible in PL/pgSQL? My
> understanding is, "No".

Well not directly. This is where the memory faded. As I understand it
pl/pgsql uses savepoints under the hood for:

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/plpgsql-control-structures.html#PLPGSQL-ERROR-TRAPPING

When trying to figure this out in the past I found:

RollbackAndReleaseCurrentSubTransaction();

in

pl_exec.c

So you are correct.

>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Adrian Klaver
> <adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>> wrote:
>
> On 10/31/2016 04:32 PM, Michael Moore wrote:
>
> I'm still a bit confused. If I replace the ROLLBACK; command with
> ELEPHANT; the result is a syntax error. Why doesn't ROLLBACK;
> produce
> the same error since it is not valid in the LANGUAGE plpgsql. I
> understand that "ROLLBACK TO SAVEPOINT" IS valid. But it's not
> the same
> thing.
>
>
> I am guessing this:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/plpgsql-implementation.html
> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.5/static/plpgsql-implementation.html>
> " A disadvantage is that errors in a specific expression or command
> cannot be detected until that part of the function is reached in
> execution. (Trivial syntax errors will be detected during the
> initial parsing pass, but anything deeper will not be detected until
> execution.)"
>
> ROLLBACK might actually be valid at some point, ELEPHANT will not so
> it caught in the trivial error stage.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Michael Moore
> <michaeljmoore(at)gmail(dot)com <mailto:michaeljmoore(at)gmail(dot)com>
> <mailto:michaeljmoore(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:michaeljmoore(at)gmail(dot)com>>> wrote:
>
> Cool, thanks David, I'll give it a read.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:24 PM, David G. Johnston
> <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
> <mailto:david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>>> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Michael Moore
> <michaeljmoore(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:michaeljmoore(at)gmail(dot)com> <mailto:michaeljmoore(at)gmail(dot)com
> <mailto:michaeljmoore(at)gmail(dot)com>>>wrote:
>
> Here is the complete function, but all you need to
> look at
> is the exception block. (I didn't write this code)
> :-) I
> will ask the question after the code.
> ​[...]​
>
> RETURN TRUE;
>
> EXCEPTION WHEN OTHERS THEN
>
> RAISE EXCEPTION '% %', SQLERRM, SQLSTATE;
>
> ROLLBACK;
>
> RETURN FALSE;
>
> END;
>
> $BODY$
>
> LANGUAGE plpgsql VOLATILE
>
> COST 100;
>
>
> So, here is the question. Why does the compiler not
> catch:
>
> 1) ROLLBACK; is not a valid PL/pgSQL command
>
>
> R
> ​eading section ​41.10.2 at the linked page should
> answer this part.
>
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plpgsql-implementation.html
> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plpgsql-implementation.html>
>
> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plpgsql-implementation.html
> <https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/static/plpgsql-implementation.html>>
>
>
> 2) ROLLBACK; and RETURN FALSE; can never be reached
>
>
>
> Similar to the above - though "static analysis" is yet a
> step
> beyond even what the syntax checking skipping covered above
> would reveal.
>
> ​David J.​
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Adrian Klaver
> adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com <mailto:adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com>
>
>

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com