Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables) - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Daniel Farina
Subject Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)
Date
Msg-id CAAZKuFYtCZCQ+ROmigfdAyMxi682ZMrHyqA9cBsQrP-DRqKSaw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)  (Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com>)
Responses Re: postgres_fdw vs data formatting GUCs (was Re: [v9.3] writable foreign tables)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Daniel Farina <daniel@heroku.com> wrote:
> I added programming around various NULL returns reading GUCs in this
> revision, v4.

Okay, one more of those fridge-logic bugs.  Sorry for the noise. v5.

A missing PG_RETHROW to get the properly finally-esque semantics:

--- a/contrib/dblink/dblink.c
+++ b/contrib/dblink/dblink.c
@@ -642,7 +642,10 @@ dblink_fetch(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
  }
  PG_CATCH();
  {
+ /* Pop any set GUCs, if necessary */
  restoreLocalGucs(&rgs);
+
+ PG_RE_THROW();
  }
  PG_END_TRY();

This was easy to add a regression test to exercise, and so I did (not
displayed here).

--
fdr

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "David E. Wheeler"
Date:
Subject: Re: citext like searches using index
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Ignore invalid indexes in pg_dump