On 14-02-2018 17:54, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marina Polyakova <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 14-02-2018 3:43, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>>> OK, can you get some kind of stack trace or other debugging
>>> information?
>
>> I got this backtrace from gdb:
>
> Hmm, so the only question in my mind is how did this ever work for
> anyone?
>
> The basic problem here is that, instead of using the
> ErrorContextCallback.arg field provided for the purpose,
> plpython_error_callback is using PLy_current_execution_context()
> to try to identify the context it's supposed to report on.
> In the example, that points to the context associated with the
> inner DO block, not with the outer procedure. That context
> looks like it should reliably have curr_proc->proname == NULL,
> so how come this test case doesn't crash for everybody?
>
> In any case the expected output for the transaction_test4
> case is obviously wrong. Rather than reporting the transaction_test4
> function and then the inner DO block, it's reporting 2 levels
> of transaction_test4. That seems to trace directly to both levels
> of error context callback looking at the same execution context.
>
> I think we need to fix the error callback code so that it
> uses the "arg" field to find the relevant procedure, and that
> that's a back-patchable fix, because nested plpython functions
> would show this up as wrong in any case. That would also let us
> undo the not-terribly-safe practice of having code between the
> PLy_push_execution_context call and the PG_TRY that is supposed
> to ensure the context gets popped again.
Thank you very much! I'll try to implement this.
> While I'm bitching ... I wonder how long it's been since the
> comment for PLy_procedure_name() had anything to do with its
> actual behavior.
AFAIU this has always been like that, since the commit 1ca717f3...
--
Marina Polyakova
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
