Re: [HACKERS] document and use SPI_result_code_string()

2017-10-04 Thread Peter Eisentraut
On 10/2/17 03:28, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 06 Sep 2017, at 14:25, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> Michael Paquier writes: >>> Fine for 0002. This reminds me of LockGXact and RemoveGXact in >>> twophase.c, as well as _hash_squeezebucket that have some

Re: [HACKERS] document and use SPI_result_code_string()

2017-10-02 Thread Daniel Gustafsson
> On 06 Sep 2017, at 14:25, Tom Lane wrote: > > Michael Paquier writes: >> Fine for 0002. This reminds me of LockGXact and RemoveGXact in >> twophase.c, as well as _hash_squeezebucket that have some code paths >> that cannot return... Any thoughts

Re: [HACKERS] document and use SPI_result_code_string()

2017-09-06 Thread Tom Lane
Michael Paquier writes: > Fine for 0002. This reminds me of LockGXact and RemoveGXact in > twophase.c, as well as _hash_squeezebucket that have some code paths > that cannot return... Any thoughts about having some kind of > PG_NOTREACHED defined to 0 which could be put

Re: [HACKERS] document and use SPI_result_code_string()

2017-09-06 Thread Michael Paquier
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > A lot of semi-internal code just prints out numeric SPI error codes, > which is not very helpful. We already have an API function > SPI_result_code_string() to convert the codes to a string, so here is

[HACKERS] document and use SPI_result_code_string()

2017-08-30 Thread Peter Eisentraut
A lot of semi-internal code just prints out numeric SPI error codes, which is not very helpful. We already have an API function SPI_result_code_string() to convert the codes to a string, so here is a patch to make more use of that and also document it for external use. Also included are two