Re: [HACKERS] Getting rid of "unknown error" in dblink and postgres_fdw
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Getting rid of "unknown error" in dblink and postgres_fdw |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 19852.1482366129@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Getting rid of "unknown error" in dblink andpostgres_fdw (Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Getting rid of "unknown error" in dblink andpostgres_fdw
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes: > I did notice that postgres_fdw has the following stanza that I don't see > in dblink: > 8<------------------ > /* > * If we don't get a message from the PGresult, try the PGconn. This > * is needed because for connection-level failures, PQexec may just > * return NULL, not a PGresult at all. > */ > if (message_primary == NULL) > message_primary = PQerrorMessage(conn); > 8<------------------ > I wonder if the original issue on pgsql-bugs was a connection-level > failure rather than OOM? Seems like dblink ought to do the same. Oooh ... I had thought that code was in both, which was why I was having a hard time explaining the OP's failure. But I see you're right, which provides a very straightforward explanation for the report. I believe that if libpq is unable to malloc a PGresult, it will return NULL but put an "out of memory" message into the PGconn's error buffer. I had supposed that we'd capture and report the latter, but as the dblink code stands, it won't. In short, yes, please copy that bit into dblink. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: