Re: proposal: PL/Pythonu - function ereport - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 12:49 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 1. in PLy_spi_error__init__ you need to check kw for NULL before doing
>> PyDict_Size(kw) otherwise for plpy.SPIError() you get Bad internal
>> call because PyDict_Size expects a real dictionary not NULL
>
>
> PyDict_Size returns -1 when the dictionary is NULL
>
> http://grokbase.com/t/python/python-dev/042ft6qaqq/pydict-size-error-return

Yes, but it also sets the error indicator to BadInternalCall. In 2.7
the code is:
Py_ssize_t
PyDict_Size(PyObject *mp)
{   if (mp == NULL || !PyDict_Check(mp)) {       PyErr_BadInternalCall();       return -1;   }   return ((PyDictObject
*)mp)->ma_used;
}

I had a PLy_elog right after the PyDict_Size call for debugging and
that one was raising BadInternalCall since it checked the error
indicator. So the NULL check is needed.

>> 2. a test with just plpy.SPIError() is still missing, this would have
>> caught 1.
>
>
> please, can you write some example - I am not able raise described error

The example was plpy.SPIError() but I now realize that, in order to
see a failure, you need the extra PLy_elog which I had in there.
But this basic form of the constructor is still an important thing to
test so please add this as well to the regression test.

>> 5. there is conceptual code duplication between PLy_spi_exception_set
>> in plpy_spi.c, since that code also constructs an SPIError but from C
>> and with more info available (edata->internalquery and
>> edata->internalpos). But making a tuple and assigning it to spidata is
>> in both. Not sure how this can be improved.
>
>
> I see it, but I don't think, so current code should be changed.
> PLy_spi_exception_set is controlled directly by fully filled ErrorData
> structure, __init__ is based only on keyword parameters with possibility use
> inherited data. If I'll build ErrorData in __init__ function and call
> PLy_spi_exception_set, then the code will be longer and more complex.

Indeed, I don't really see how to improve this but it does bug me a bit.

One more thing,
+    The <literal>plpy</literal> module provides several possibilities to
+    to raise a exception:

This has "to" 2 times and is weird since it says it offers several
possibilities but then shows only one (the SPIError constructor).
And SPIError should be <literal>plpy.SPIError</literal> everywhere to
be consistent.

Maybe something like (needs markup):
A plpy.SPIError can be raised from PL/Python, the constructor accepts
keyword parameters: plpy.SPIError([ message [, detail [, hint [, sqlstate [, schema [,
table [, column [, datatype [, constraint ]]]]]]]]])
then the example

If you fix the doc and add the plpy.SPIError() test I'm happy. I'll
give it one more test on Python2.7 and 3.5 and mark it Ready for
Committer.