From: | "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: SPI: Correct way to rollback a subtransaction? |
Date: | 2006-02-21 14:43:47 |
Message-ID: | e51f66da0602210643s279b799iae40f3c34651cd70@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2/21/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Marko Kreen" <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On 2/20/06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> This seems like a pretty bad idea: if the SPI_connect fails you lose
> >> control without having unwound the subtransaction. That's unlikely,
> >> but still wrong.
>
> > But if I want the error to reach upper transaction? SPI_connect
> > failure does not seem a 'expected' situation to me.
>
> In that case you should put the SPI_connect and later SPI_finish
> *outside* the subtransaction and TRY block. And you'll need
> SPI_restore_connection I think. This structure would be exactly
> parallel to the way pl_exec.c does it.
It does not seem worth the complexity, I rather go with the simple
approach and put it inside TRY block then.
--
marko
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-02-21 14:55:12 | Re: [PATCH] ipv6 support for getaddrinfo.c |
Previous Message | Mark Woodward | 2006-02-21 14:39:16 | pg_config, pg_service.conf, postgresql.conf .... |