On 2014-01-06 11:08:41 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2014-01-06 09:43:45 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > >> > I actually vote for not allowing doing so at all by erroring out when > >> > accessing a plpgsql variable created in an aborted subxact, unless you > >> > explicitly signal that you want to do do so by calling some function > >> > deleting the information about which subxact a variable was created > >> > in. I have seen several bugs caused by people assuming that EXCEPTION > >> > BLOCK/subtransaction rollback had some kind of effects on variables > >> > created in them. And we just don't have much support for doing anything > >> > in that direction safely. > >> > >> So, you want to let users do things that are unsafe, but only if they > >> ask nicely? That hardly seems right. > > > > Well, no. If they have to use that function explicitly *before* the > > subxact aborted, we can copy & detoast the value out of that context > > safely. > > Oh, I see. I think that's pretty icky. Users won't expect (and will > complain about) such restrictions.
Yea. But at least it would fail reliably instead of just under concurrency and other strange circumstances - and there'd be a safe way out. Currently there seem to be all sorts of odd behaviour possible. I simply don't have a better idea :( Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
