Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm wondering if it wouldn't be more robust to define a longjmp target
> block before calling BaseInit(), and have it exit cleanly in case of
> failure (which is what you say elog.c should be doing if there is no
> target block).
No, because elog is already supposed to deal with that case; and does,
every time you connect to a bad database name for example. If it's
failing, the question to answer is why.
> In errstart(), it is checked if PG_exception_stack is NULL. Now, this
> symbol is defined in elog.c and initialized to NULL, but I wonder if a
> child process inherits the value that postmaster set, or it comes back
> to NULL.
Hmm ... I was about to say that the postmaster never sets
PG_exception_stack, but maybe an error out of a PG_TRY/PG_RE_THROW
could do it? Does the postmaster ever execute PG_TRY? (And if so,
should it? The postmaster really ought not be dealing in anything
very hairy --- it should be passing such work off to children.)
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
