Re: plpgsq_plugin's stmt_end() is not called when an error is caught

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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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