From: | Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: postgres_fdw: misplaced? comments in connection.c |
Date: | 2021-10-12 04:33:39 |
Message-ID: | CAPmGK14DsTYEMso5MhDQx3ecwph2huck9uXy=hzftQ+B3L5RWg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:05 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> The comments for pgfdw_get_cleanup_result() say this:
>
> * It's not a huge problem if we throw an ERROR here, but if we get into error
> * recursion trouble, we'll end up slamming the connection shut, which will
> * necessitate failing the entire toplevel transaction even if subtransactions
> * were used. Try to use WARNING where we can.
>
> But we don’t use WARNING anywhere in that function. The right place
> for this is pgfdw_exec_cleanup_query()?
I noticed that pgfdw_cancel_query(), which is called during (sub)abort
cleanup if necessary, also uses WARNING, instead of ERROR, to avoid
the error-recursion-trouble issue. So I think it would be good to
move this to pgfdw_cancel_query() as well as
pgfdw_exec_cleanup_query(). Attached is a patch for that.
Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
move-misplaced-comments.patch | application/octet-stream | 2.2 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-10-12 04:45:48 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2021-10-12 04:25:01 | Re: Allow escape in application_name |