Re: strange buildfarm failures

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: strange buildfarm failures
Date: 2007-05-02 03:42:52
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more robust to define a longjmp target
> block before calling BaseInit(), and have it exit cleanly in case of
> failure (which is what you say elog.c should be doing if there is no
> target block).

No, because elog is already supposed to deal with that case; and does,
every time you connect to a bad database name for example. If it's
failing, the question to answer is why.

> In errstart(), it is checked if PG_exception_stack is NULL. Now, this
> symbol is defined in elog.c and initialized to NULL, but I wonder if a
> child process inherits the value that postmaster set, or it comes back
> to NULL.

Hmm ... I was about to say that the postmaster never sets
PG_exception_stack, but maybe an error out of a PG_TRY/PG_RE_THROW
could do it? Does the postmaster ever execute PG_TRY? (And if so,
should it? The postmaster really ought not be dealing in anything
very hairy --- it should be passing such work off to children.)

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2007-05-02 03:50:46 Re: Patch queue triage
Previous Message Greg Smith 2007-05-02 03:42:47 Re: Patch queue triage