On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Etsuro Fujita <fujita.etsuro@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> What do you think? This open item's seven-day deadline has passed. It >> would >> help keep things moving to know whether you consider your latest patch >> optimal >> or whether you wish to change it the way Michael described. > > I wish to change it that way because it not only avoids the duplicate but > fixes a bug in the previous patch that I overlooked that there is a race > condition if a signal arrives just before entering the CheckSocket. > > Attached is an updated version of the patch.
The comment just before the second hunk in the patch says:
* We don't use a PG_TRY block here, so be careful not to throw error * without releasing the PGresult.
But the patch adds a whole bunch of new things there that seem like they can error out, like CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPTS(), for example. Isn't that a problem?
Basically we fetching the PGresult, after the newly added hunk, so there
