"Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com> writes:
> BeginInternalSubTransaction(NULL);
> res = SPI_connect();
> if (res < 0)
> elog(ERROR, "cannot connect to SPI");
> PG_TRY();
> {
> res = SPI_execute("update one row", false, 0);
> SPI_finish();
> ReleaseCurrentSubTransaction();
> }
> PG_CATCH();
> {
> SPI_finish();
> RollbackAndReleaseCurrentSubTransaction();
> FlushErrorState();
> res = -1; /* remember failure */
> }
> PG_END_TRY();
This seems like a pretty bad idea: if the SPI_connect fails you lose
control without having unwound the subtransaction. That's unlikely,
but still wrong. I think you could do this as
BeginInternalSubTransaction(NULL);PG_TRY();{ res = SPI_connect(); if (res < 0) elog(ERROR, "cannot connect
toSPI"); res = SPI_execute("update one row", false, 0); SPI_finish();
ReleaseCurrentSubTransaction();}PG_CATCH();{ /* we expect rollback to clean up inner SPI call */
RollbackAndReleaseCurrentSubTransaction(); FlushErrorState(); res = -1; /* remember failure */}PG_END_TRY();
Check the abort-subtrans path but I think it gets you out of the nested
SPI call. (Because pl_exec.c wants to preserve an already-opened SPI
call, it has to go out of its way to undo this via SPI_restore_connection.
I *think* you don't need that here but am too lazy to check for sure.
Anyway it'll be good practice for you to figure it out for yourself ;-))
regards, tom lane
