Re: Segment fault when excuting SPI function On PG with commit 41c6a5be

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, "liuhuailing(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <liuhuailing(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Segment fault when excuting SPI function On PG with commit 41c6a5be
Date: 2021-07-30 15:22:43
Message-ID: 1004237.1627658563@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
>> On 30 Jul 2021, at 17:06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I wonder if we should convert the Assert into an actual test-and-elog, say
>>
>> /* Otherwise, we'd better have an active Portal */
>> portal = ActivePortal;
>> - Assert(portal != NULL);
>> + if (unlikely(portal == NULL))
>> + elog(ERROR, "must have an outer snapshot or portal");
>> Assert(portal->portalSnapshot == NULL);
>>
>> Perhaps that would help people to realize that the bug is theirs
>> not EnsurePortalSnapshotExists's.

> +1, that would probably be quite helpful.

Happy to make it so. Anyone have suggestions about the wording of
the message?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-07-30 15:48:49 Re: Case expression pushdown
Previous Message Jacob Champion 2021-07-30 15:11:49 Re: [PATCH] test/ssl: rework the sslfiles Makefile target