| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | John Lumby <johnlumby(at)hotmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: legitimacy of using PG_TRY , PG_CATCH , PG_END_TRY in C function |
| Date: | 2017-10-23 08:20:14 |
| Message-ID: | CAMsr+YE6C_u-FWMRNNtkBDUbNn-hPW2zyGmL0kAc1P8+m9x--g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 23 October 2017 at 16:16, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 23 October 2017 at 08:30, John Lumby <johnlumby(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> All works but not perfectly -- at COMMIT, resource_owner issues
>> relcache reference leak messages about relation scans not closed
>> and also about snapshot still active. I guess that the CREATE has
>> switched resource_owner and pushed a snapshot, but I did not
>> debug in detail.
>
> A lot more work is required than what's done pg PG_CATCH to return to
> a queryable state. I've been down this path myself, and it's not fun.
Ignore me, Tom's example is probably more relevant to you since it
applies to subtransactions, not top-level query state.
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-10-23 08:22:17 | Re: legitimacy of using PG_TRY , PG_CATCH , PG_END_TRY in C function |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2017-10-23 08:16:10 | Re: legitimacy of using PG_TRY , PG_CATCH , PG_END_TRY in C function |