| From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "wang(dot)xiao(dot)peng" <wxp_728(at)163(dot)com>, SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Re: Bug: WAIT FOR LSN crashes with assertion failure inside PL/pgSQL DO blocks and procedures |
| Date: | 2026-04-13 11:06:38 |
| Message-ID: | CAPpHfdts2dMoMvCbUtbYHYFXWbfi9WM-pz2ZzJwE3NaYcGsTWg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 10:36 AM Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I’ve revised the patch. Moving the non–top-level rejection to the
> beginning of the function may help avoid unnecessary parsing and
> validation work, although it could make the reasoning slightly less
> localized.
>
> Since this is user-facing, should we explicitly document this
> constraint to make the behavior less surprising? The rejection applies
> not only to wrapping the command in a procedure or function, but also
> within a DO block.
>
> It might also be worth adding a regression test and refining the error
> message accordingly. With this new constraint, some existing comments
> were outdated and have been updated as well.
Accepted, thank you. Also, I've added errdetail() to clarify when the
statement could be not top-level. Pushed.
------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2026-04-13 11:11:34 | Re: Parallel Apply |
| Previous Message | Bertrand Drouvot | 2026-04-13 11:04:09 | Re: Reduce build times of pg_trgm GIN indexes |