From: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: plpgsq_plugin's stmt_end() is not called when an error is caught |
Date: | 2022-12-16 07:23:13 |
Message-ID: | CAD21AoDLBr7_JLwH+8tNw0Ecp+iiMMM2WVhNsgJrSh0r0faviA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Dec 16, 2022 at 12:49 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > I don't think we need additional PG_TRY() for that since exec_stmts()
> > is already called in PG_TRY() if there is an exception block. I meant
> > to call stmt_end() in PG_CATCH() in exec_stmt_block() (i.e. only when
> > an error is caught by the exception block). Currently, if an error is
> > caught, we call stmt_begin() and stmt_end() for statements executed
> > inside the exception block but call only stmt_begin() for the
> > statement that raised an error.
>
> I fail to see anything wrong with that. We never completed execution
> of the statement that raised an error, but calling stmt_end for it
> would imply that we did.
Thank you for the comment. Agreed.
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2022-12-16 07:48:17 | Re: New strategies for freezing, advancing relfrozenxid early |
Previous Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2022-12-16 07:08:23 | Re: Perform streaming logical transactions by background workers and parallel apply |