On 10/2/17 03:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>> On 06 Sep 2017, at 14:25, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> Michael Paquier writes:
>>> Fine for 0002. This reminds me of LockGXact and RemoveGXact in
>>> twophase.c, as well as _hash_squeezebucket that have some code paths
>>> that cannot return... Any thoughts
> On 06 Sep 2017, at 14:25, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Michael Paquier writes:
>> Fine for 0002. This reminds me of LockGXact and RemoveGXact in
>> twophase.c, as well as _hash_squeezebucket that have some code paths
>> that cannot return... Any thoughts about having some kind of
>> PG_NOTREACHED defin
Michael Paquier writes:
> Fine for 0002. This reminds me of LockGXact and RemoveGXact in
> twophase.c, as well as _hash_squeezebucket that have some code paths
> that cannot return... Any thoughts about having some kind of
> PG_NOTREACHED defined to 0 which could be put in an assertion?
Generally
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Peter Eisentraut
wrote:
> A lot of semi-internal code just prints out numeric SPI error codes,
> which is not very helpful. We already have an API function
> SPI_result_code_string() to convert the codes to a string, so here is a
> patch to make more use of that
A lot of semi-internal code just prints out numeric SPI error codes,
which is not very helpful. We already have an API function
SPI_result_code_string() to convert the codes to a string, so here is a
patch to make more use of that and also document it for external use.
Also included are two patch
