On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:27 PM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:39 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 6:57 AM, Michael Paquier
>> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 4:12 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> Fujii Masao <fujii@postgresql.org> writes:
>>>>> Fix connection leak in DROP SUBSCRIPTION command.
>>>>> Previously the command forgot to close the connection to the publisher
>>>>> when it failed to drop the replication slot.
>>>>
>>>> If there's a bug here, this seems like an extremely unreliable way of
>>>> fixing it. What if an error gets thrown before you reach that ereport?
>>>>
>>>> In other words, this coding is assuming that the walrcv_command()
>>>> subroutine cannot throw an error,
>>
>> Yes, but I agree that walrcv_command() may be changed in the future so that
>> an error is thrown and current coding is not reliable in that case.
>>
>>>> which I would consider dangerous
>>>> even if it were a fixed subroutine. If it's a hook that's doing
>>>> unknown stuff, that seems a completely untenable assumption. You
>>>> really need either to hook the cleanup action into normal error
>>>> recovery, or to use a PG_TRY block.
>>>
>>> To be honest, I have thought about using PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP()
>>> when seeing the thread. If other ERROR messages are generated in the
>>> future that the current fix would be unreliable.
>>
>> What about the attached patch?
>
> Thanks for the patch. That looks good to me.
Petr and Michael,
Thanks for the review! Pushed.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
