| From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #18984: Empty prepared statement from psql \parse triggers assert in PortalRunMulti |
| Date: | 2025-07-15 12:33:14 |
| Message-ID: | 202507151233.n5jw4x3jtc2g@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On 2025-Jul-15, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> > ... I am wondering if we should not just nuke the assertion at the end
> > of PortalRunMulti() instead, relying on the same check done at the
> > beginning of ProcessUtility().
>
> Yeah, I was starting to think about that solution too. Removing
> code seems nicer than adding more.
Yeah, this makes sense to me too. I'd rewrite the comment while at it,
because what's being described as "printing 0 0" no longer occurs in
this form in this place anymore. Maybe we could discuss adding
some commentary to EndCommand where this now happens, but I don't think
we really need it.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| 0001-Remove-assertion-in-PortalRunMulti-simplify-comment.patch | text/x-diff | 1.8 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-07-15 14:35:22 | Re: BUG #18985: fast shutdown does not close connections from qlik data gateway data movement aka. replicate |
| Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2025-07-15 10:23:51 | BUG #18985: fast shutdown does not close connections from qlik data gateway data movement aka. replicate |