Re: Shouldn't postgres_fdw report warning when it gives up getting result from foreign server? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fujii Masao
Subject Re: Shouldn't postgres_fdw report warning when it gives up getting result from foreign server?
Date
Msg-id f3a46c40-2ffd-4f5e-b145-ac568019a6db@oss.nttdata.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Shouldn't postgres_fdw report warning when it gives up getting result from foreign server?  (Bharath Rupireddy <bharath.rupireddyforpostgres@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Shouldn't postgres_fdw report warning when it gives up getting result from foreign server?
List pgsql-hackers

On 2021/11/19 22:13, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> How about adding the warning message in pgfdw_abort_cleanup instead of
> pgfdw_get_cleanup_result?
> 
> Just before this in pgfdw_abort_cleanup seems better to me.

I was thinking pgfdw_get_cleanup_result() is better because it can
easily report different warning messages based on cases of a timeout
or connection failure, respectively. Since pgfdw_get_cleanup_result()
returns true in both those cases, ISTM that it's not easy to
distinguish them in pgfdw_abort_cleanup().

Anyway, attached is the patch (pgfdw_get_cleanup_result_v1.patch)
that makes pgfdw_get_cleanup_result() report a warning message.


> Yeah, this seems to be an opportunity. But, the function should deal
> with the timeout separately, I'm concerned that the function will
> eventually be having if (timeout_param_specified) {  } else { } sort
> of code. We can see how much duplicate code we save here vs the
> readability or complexity that comes with the single function.

Please see the attached patch (refactor_pgfdw_get_result_v1.patch).
This is still WIP, but you can check how much the refactoring can
simplify the code.

Regards,

-- 
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Dilger
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-superuser subscription owners
Next
From: Mark Dilger
Date:
Subject: Re: Non-superuser subscription owners