Noah Misch <n...@leadboat.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 11:04:11PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> *************** AtSubAbort_Portals(SubTransactionId mySu
>> --- 909,966 ----
>> {
>> Portal portal = hentry->portal;
>>
>> + /* Was it created in this subtransaction? */
>> if (portal->createSubid != mySubid)
>> + {
>> + /* No, but maybe it was used in this subtransaction? */
>> + if (portal->activeSubid == mySubid)
>> + {
> ...
>> + if (portal->status == PORTAL_ACTIVE)
>> + MarkPortalFailed(portal);
> Do you have a test case that reaches this particular MarkPortalFailed() call?
> My attempts stumbled over the fact that, before we reach here, each of the
> three MarkPortalActive() callers will have already called MarkPortalFailed()
> in its PG_CATCH block. ("make check" does not reach this call.)
Offhand I think that's just belt-and-suspenders-too coding. As you say,
we'd typically have failed active portals already before getting here.
But the responsibility of this routine is to *guarantee* that no broken
portals remain active, so I'd not want to remove this check.
Do you have a particular reason for asking?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
