Re: Error handling in plperl and pltcl

Jan,

> ... plus that the catch-nesting automatically represents the
> subtransaction nesting. I can't really see any reason why those two
> should not be bound together. Does anybody?

That depends on what you mean. As a stop-gap solution, cerntanly. But in
the long run, I still think that savepoints and exception handling
should be kept separate. Consider the following two examples:

savepoint a
spi calls
savepoint b
spi calls
savepoint c
spi calls

switch(some test)
{
case 1:
rollback b;
commit a;
break;
case 2:
rollback c;
commit a;
break;
case 3:
rollback a;
break;
default:
commit a;
}

or nested try/catch where the catch doesn't access the database:

foo()
{
try
{
spi calls;
}
catch
{
set some status;
re-throw;
}
}

and some other place in the code:

savepoint a
try
{
spi calls;
for(i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
foo();
commit a;
}
catch
{
rollback a;
}

If "normal" savepoint hanling is disabled here in favor of your
suggestion, you will get 101 subtransations although only 1 is relevant.

I still think that the concept of savepoints is fairly easy to
understand. Using it together with exception handling is a common and
well known concept and we can make it even more so by providing good
documentation and examples.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren