2016-11-07 2:16 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>:

> The intent of SPI_push/SPI_pop seems to be to draw a boundary line between
> nested layers of SPI callers.  Which is fine, but the SPI_connect and
> SPI_finish calls of the inner layer would suffice for that.  AFAICS,
> the only thing that SPI_push/SPI_pop buy for us is the ability to detect
> a missing SPI_connect or SPI_finish in an inner function layer.  And
> that seems pretty useless, because any such bug in a function would be
> immediately detected in simple testing that calls it without any outer
> level of SPI calls.
> As against that, we have the risk of forgotten SPI_push/SPI_pop calls that
> go undetected for years, as just seen in commit fc8b81a29.  We've had that
> type of bug before too, cf 0d4899e44.  And then there's the fact that we
> put conditional SPI_push/SPI_pop calls into various places, eg deac9488d,
> which it seems to me largely destroys whatever debugging value the concept
> did have.
> So I think we should just delete these functions and adjust SPI_connect
> and SPI_finish so that they just push/pop a context level unconditionally.
> (Which will make them simpler, not more complicated.)
> We can provide do-nothing macros by these names to avoid an API break
> for third-party extensions.
> Comments, objections?

cannot be there some performance impacts?



>                         regards, tom lane
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers

Reply via email to