2018-03-14 15:11 GMT+01:00 Alexander Korotkov <a.korot...@postgrespro.ru>:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 2:10 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> On 2018-03-14 07:54:35 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 04:08:01PM +0300, Oleg Bartunov wrote: >> > > The docs are here >> > > https://github.com/obartunov/sqljsondoc/blob/master/README.j >> sonpath.md >> > > >> > > It's not easy to write docs for SQL/JSON in xml, so I decided to >> write in more >> > > friendly way. We'll have time to convert it to postgres format. >> > >> > If you aim at getting a feature committed first without its >> > documentation, and getting the docs written after the feature freeze >> > using a dedicated open item or such, this is much acceptable in my >> > opinion and the CF is running short in time. >> >> Given that this patch still uses PG_TRY/CATCH around as wide paths of >> code as a whole ExecEvalExpr() invocation, > > > I agree that we should either use PG_TRY/CATCH over some small and safe > codepaths or surround PG_TRY/CATCH with subtransactions. PG_TRY/CATCH > over > ExecEvalExpr() looks really unacceptable. > > basically has gotten no >> review, I don't see this going anywhere for v11. >> > > I wouldn't be co categorical at this point. Patchset is there for about > year. > Some parts of code received more of review while some parts receives less. > We can surround all dangerous PG_TRY/CATCH pairs with subtransactions, > tolerate performance penalty and leave further optimizations for future > releases. > In worst case, we can remove codepaths which use PG_TRY/CATCH and > leave only ERROR ON ERROR behavior of SQL/JSON. > I am thinking so using subtransactions on few places are acceptable. PLpgSQL uses it years, and it is working good enough. Regards Pavel > > > ------ > Alexander Korotkov > Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com > The Russian Postgres Company >