> On 2019-02-06 13:09:59 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > This is obviously wrong; while we have a couple of codesites that omit
> > it, it's not a generally available coding pattern. I think we should
> > amend that comment. I propose: "The error recovery code must normally
> > do PG_RE_THROW() to propagate the error outwards; failure to do so may
> > leave the system in an inconsistent state for further processing."
On 2019-Feb-06, Andres Freund wrote:
> Well, but it's ok not to rethrow if you do a [sub]transaction
> rollback. I assume that's why it's framed as optional. We probably
> should reference that fact?
On 2019-Feb-06, Tom Lane wrote:
> Well, it can either do PG_RE_THROW or do a (sub)transaction abort.
> Some level of throw-catching code has to do the latter eventually.
So,
"The error recovery code can either do PG_RE_THROW to propagate the
error outwards, or do a (sub)transaction abort. Failure to do so may
leave the system in an inconsistent state for further processing."
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services