Re: alternative to PG_CATCH

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
Subject: Re: alternative to PG_CATCH
Date: 2019-10-29 15:53:02
Message-ID: 6339394a-cb5b-077f-1e3c-97fcc395b1f4@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2019-10-28 13:45, Robert Haas wrote:
> In theory, the do_rethrow variable could conflict with a symbol
> declared in the surrounding scope, but that doesn't seem like it's a
> problem worth getting worked up about.

Right. A PG_TRY block also declares other local variables for internal
use without much care about namespacing. If it becomes a problem, it's
easy to address.

--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Eugen Konkov 2019-10-29 15:54:36 Does 'instead of delete' trigger support modification of OLD
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2019-10-29 15:48:24 Re: Add const qualifiers to internal range type APIs