From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: some last patches breaks plan cache |
Date: | 2018-04-04 18:03:42 |
Message-ID: | 5d95afc4-0ed0-897f-6e9d-75331caed98a@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 04/04/2018 07:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> This should do the trick - I've failed to realize exec_stmt_call may
>> exit by calling elog(ERROR) too, in which case the plan pointer was not
>> reset.
>
>> This does fix the failures presented here, but I don't think it's the
>> right solution
>
> No, it's completely unacceptable.
>
Yes, I realize that and I was not really suggesting this as a proper
fix. It was meant more to demonstrate that it's still the same issue
with the same dangling pointer.
> If there's really no other way, you could use a PG_TRY block to
> ensure that the pointer gets reset on the way out. But I question
> why we've got a design that requires that in the first place. It's
> likely to have more problems than this.
>
I agree it needs a solution that does not require us to track and
manually reset pointers on random places. No argument here.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-04 18:04:10 | Re: Foreign keys and partitioned tables |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-04-04 17:54:59 | Re: some last patches breaks plan cache |