Re: legitimacy of using PG_TRY , PG_CATCH , PG_END_TRY in C function

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: John Lumby <johnlumby(at)hotmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: legitimacy of using PG_TRY , PG_CATCH , PG_END_TRY in C function
Date: 2017-10-23 08:20:14
Message-ID: CAMsr+YE6C_u-FWMRNNtkBDUbNn-hPW2zyGmL0kAc1P8+m9x--g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 23 October 2017 at 16:16, Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 23 October 2017 at 08:30, John Lumby <johnlumby(at)hotmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> All works but not perfectly -- at COMMIT, resource_owner issues
>> relcache reference leak messages about relation scans not closed
>> and also about snapshot still active. I guess that the CREATE has
>> switched resource_owner and pushed a snapshot, but I did not
>> debug in detail.
>
> A lot more work is required than what's done pg PG_CATCH to return to
> a queryable state. I've been down this path myself, and it's not fun.

Ignore me, Tom's example is probably more relevant to you since it
applies to subtransactions, not top-level query state.

--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2017-10-23 08:22:17 Re: legitimacy of using PG_TRY , PG_CATCH , PG_END_TRY in C function
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2017-10-23 08:16:10 Re: legitimacy of using PG_TRY , PG_CATCH , PG_END_TRY in C function