Move SPI error reporting out of ri_ReportViolation()

These are two completely unrelated code paths, so it doesn't make sense
to pack them into one function.

Add attribute noreturn to ri_ReportViolation().

Reviewed-by: Michael Paquier <[email protected]>

diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c b/src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c
index c2891e6fa1e1d3380952db4e7e6efc06a40e116f..b63a7775b7c679032d2690dd7ca0311d3122bcf5 100644 (file)
--- a/src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c
+++ b/src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c
@@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ static void ri_ExtractValues(Relation rel, HeapTuple tup,
 static void ri_ReportViolation(const RI_ConstraintInfo *riinfo,
                   Relation pk_rel, Relation fk_rel,
                   HeapTuple violator, TupleDesc tupdesc,
-                  int queryno, bool spi_err);
+                  int queryno) pg_attribute_noreturn();
 
 
 /* ----------
@@ -2499,7 +2499,7 @@ RI_Initial_Check(Trigger *trigger, Relation fk_rel, Relation pk_rel)
        ri_ReportViolation(&fake_riinfo,
                           pk_rel, fk_rel,
                           tuple, tupdesc,
-                          RI_PLAN_CHECK_LOOKUPPK, false);
+                          RI_PLAN_CHECK_LOOKUPPK);
    }
 
    if (SPI_finish() != SPI_OK_FINISH)
@@ -3147,11 +3147,13 @@ ri_PerformCheck(const RI_ConstraintInfo *riinfo,
        elog(ERROR, "SPI_execute_snapshot returned %d", spi_result);
 
    if (expect_OK >= 0 && spi_result != expect_OK)
-       ri_ReportViolation(riinfo,
-                          pk_rel, fk_rel,
-                          new_tuple ? new_tuple : old_tuple,
-                          NULL,
-                          qkey->constr_queryno, true);
+       ereport(ERROR,
+               (errcode(ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR),
+                errmsg("referential integrity query on \"%s\" from constraint \"%s\" on \"%s\" gave unexpected result",
+                       RelationGetRelationName(pk_rel),
+                       NameStr(riinfo->conname),
+                       RelationGetRelationName(fk_rel)),
+                errhint("This is most likely due to a rule having rewritten the query.")));
 
    /* XXX wouldn't it be clearer to do this part at the caller? */
    if (qkey->constr_queryno != RI_PLAN_CHECK_LOOKUPPK_FROM_PK &&
@@ -3161,7 +3163,7 @@ ri_PerformCheck(const RI_ConstraintInfo *riinfo,
                           pk_rel, fk_rel,
                           new_tuple ? new_tuple : old_tuple,
                           NULL,
-                          qkey->constr_queryno, false);
+                          qkey->constr_queryno);
 
    return SPI_processed != 0;
 }
@@ -3205,7 +3207,7 @@ static void
 ri_ReportViolation(const RI_ConstraintInfo *riinfo,
                   Relation pk_rel, Relation fk_rel,
                   HeapTuple violator, TupleDesc tupdesc,
-                  int queryno, bool spi_err)
+                  int queryno)
 {
    StringInfoData key_names;
    StringInfoData key_values;
@@ -3216,15 +3218,6 @@ ri_ReportViolation(const RI_ConstraintInfo *riinfo,
    AclResult   aclresult;
    bool        has_perm = true;
 
-   if (spi_err)
-       ereport(ERROR,
-               (errcode(ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR),
-                errmsg("referential integrity query on \"%s\" from constraint \"%s\" on \"%s\" gave unexpected result",
-                       RelationGetRelationName(pk_rel),
-                       NameStr(riinfo->conname),
-                       RelationGetRelationName(fk_rel)),
-                errhint("This is most likely due to a rule having rewritten the query.")));
-
    /*
     * Determine which relation to complain about.  If tupdesc wasn't passed
     * by caller, assume the violator tuple came from there.