Re: postgres_fdw: misplaced? comments in connection.c
От | Etsuro Fujita |
---|---|
Тема | Re: postgres_fdw: misplaced? comments in connection.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAPmGK165=w3fL=hNsCqU9c55n+LNAxK781=LD=ewLbTdiYNkMA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: postgres_fdw: misplaced? comments in connection.c (Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 1:33 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:05 PM Etsuro Fujita <etsuro.fujita@gmail.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. There seems to be no objections, so I have applied the patch. Best regards, Etsuro Fujita
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: