Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com> writes:
>
>>This is especially a problem when the cleanup needs to be done inside
>>the embedded interpreter. I found that with R, I had to throw an error
>>in the R interpreter in order to allow the interpreter to clean up its
>>own state. That left me with code like this:
>>[ snip ]
>>Looks good to me, but I worry about being able to do what I've described
>>above. Basically I found that if I don't allow R to clean up after
>>itself by propagating the SPI call generated error into R, before
>>throwing a Postgres ERROR, I wind up with core dumps.
>
>
> You could still do that, and perhaps even a bit more cleanly:
>
> sqlErrorOccurred = false;
> PG_TRY();
> {
> ans = R_tryEval(call, R_GlobalEnv, &errorOccurred);
> }
> PG_CATCH();
> {
> sqlErrorOccurred = true;
> /* push PG error into R machinery */
> error("%s", "error executing SQL statement");
> }
> PG_END_TRY();
>
> if (sqlErrorOccurred)
> PG_RE_THROW();
> if (errorOccurred)
> ereport(ERROR, "report R error here");
>
> (The ereport will trigger only for errors originating in R, not for
> PG errors propagated out, which exit via the RE_THROW.)
>
> However I wonder whether either of these really work. What happens
> inside R's "error()" routine, exactly? A longjmp? It seems like this
> structure is relying on the stack not to get clobbered between elog.c's
> longjmp and R's. Which would usually work, except when you happened to
> get a signal during those few instructions...
>
> It seems like what you really need is a TRY inside each of the functions
> you offer as callbacks from R to PG. These would catch errors, return
> them as failures to the R level, which would in turn fail out to the
> tryEval call, and from there you could RE_THROW the original error
> (which will still be patiently waiting in elog.c).
>
For what it's worth, I think this looks really good. Especially when
combined with the proposal discussed in the "Sketch of extending error
handling for subtransactions in functions". PL/Java makes heavy use
(almost all calls) of TRY/CATCH macros today so any performance
increase, even a small one, might be significant. And the ability to
catch an error and actually handle it, hear, hear!
Kind regards,
Thomas Hallgren
