| From: | Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> | 
| Subject: | Re: enhancing plpgsql debug api - hooks on statements errors and function errors | 
| Date: | 2023-04-25 15:32:47 | 
| Message-ID: | CAFj8pRAGVCWoYgDS0hdOUEC693dt6RCub-EFYrYd274E7cfjaw@mail.gmail.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
Hi
út 25. 4. 2023 v 10:27 odesílatel Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>
napsal:
> Hi
>
> When I implemented profiler and coverage check to plpgsql_check I had to
> write a lot of hard maintaining code related to corect finishing some
> operations (counter incrementing) usually executed by stmt_end and func_end
> hooks. It is based on the fmgr hook and its own statement call stack. Can
> be nice if I can throw this code and use some nice buildin API.
>
> Can we enhance dbg API with two hooks stmt_end_err func_end_err ?
>
> These hooks can be called from exception handlers before re raising.
>
> Or we can define new hooks like executor hooks - stmt_exec and func_exec.
> In custom hooks the exception can be catched.
>
> What do you think about this proposal?
>
>
I did quick and ugly benchmark on worst case
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION public.speedtest(i integer)
 RETURNS void
 LANGUAGE plpgsql
 IMMUTABLE
AS $function$
declare c int = 0;
begin
  while c < i
  loop
    c := c + 1;
  end loop;
  raise notice '%', c;
end;
$function$
and is possible to write some code (see ugly patch) without any performance
impacts if the hooks are not used. When hooks are active, then there is 7%
performance lost. It is not nice - but this is the worst case. The impact
on real code should be significantly lower
Regards
Pavel
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size | 
|---|---|---|
| plpgsql-enhanced-debug-api.patch | text/x-patch | 8.5 KB | 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2023-04-25 15:42:43 | Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2023-04-25 15:20:38 | Re: Order changes in PG16 since ICU introduction |