Re: Review: ECPG infrastructure changes part 1, was: Re: ECPG fixes

From: Antonin Houska <antonin(dot)houska(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Hans-Jürgen Schönig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: Review: ECPG infrastructure changes part 1, was: Re: ECPG fixes
Date: 2013-12-06 14:58:34
Message-ID: 52A1E61A.7010100@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tested git apply and build again. No warnings.

The regression test also looks good to me now.

I'm done with this review.

(Not sure if I should move it to 'ready for committer' status or the CFM
should do).

// Antonin Houska (Tony)

On 12/06/2013 02:01 PM, Boszormenyi Zoltan wrote:
> 2013-12-04 14:51 keltezéssel, Boszormenyi Zoltan írta:
>> 2013-12-03 16:48 keltezéssel, Antonin Houska írta:
>>
>>> Tests - 23.patch
>>> ----------------
>>>
>>> src/interfaces/ecpg/test/sql/cursorsubxact.pgc
>>>
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * Test the implicit RELEASE SAVEPOINT if a SAVEPOINT
>>> * is used with an already existing name.
>>> */
>>>
>>> Shouldn't it be "... if a CURSOR is used with an already existing
>>> name?". Or just "... implicit RELEASE SAVEPOINT after an error"?
>>> I'd also appreciate a comment where exactly the savepoint is
>>> (implicitly) released.
>>
>> I have already answered this in my previous answer.
>
> And I was wrong in that. The comments in the test were rearranged
> a little and the fact in the above comment is now actually tested.
>
> Some harmless unused variables were also removed and an
> uninitialized variable usage was fixed. Because of these and the above
> changes a lot of patches need to be rebased.
>
> All patches are attached again for completeness.
>
> Best regards,
> Zoltán Böszörményi
>

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2013-12-06 15:04:36 Re: Proof of concept: standalone backend with full FE/BE protocol
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2013-12-06 14:54:59 Re: Add %z support to elog/ereport?