On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 7:05 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> I don't understand the argument that we need type input functions to >> be protected by a savepoint. That seems crazy to me. We're taking a >> huge performance penalty here to protect against something that seems >> insane to me in the first instance. Not to mention cutting ourselves >> off from really important features, like the ability to recover from >> errors during COPY. I don't understand why we can't just make some >> rules about what type input functions are allowed to do. > > There are many rules that you could possibly make for type input > functions. But "you cannot throw an error" is not one of them --- > or at least, not one that you can usefully expect to be followed > for anything more than trivial straightline code.
OK. This is one of the things I don't understand. Why does throwing an error imply that we need to abort the current transaction? Why can't we just catch the longjmp() and trundle onwards? Obviously, that's unsafe if a pretty wide variety of cases, but if you're just scrutinizing the input string (even with a little bit of read-only database access) it's not obvious to me what can go wrong. (I assume there is something, but I don't know what it is...) -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise Postgres Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
