Re: wCTE: why not finish sub-updates at the end, not the beginning?

On 2011-02-26 7:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> IMO the major disadvantage of a refactoring like this is the possibility
> of sins of omission in third-party code, in particular somebody not
> noticing the added requirement to call ExecutorFinish.  We could help
> them out by adding an Assert in ExecutorEnd to verify that
> ExecutorFinish had been called (unless explain-only mode).  A variant of
> that problem is an auto_explain-like add-on not noticing that they
> probably want to hook into ExecutorFinish if they'd previously been
> hooking ExecutorRun.  I don't see any simple check for that though.
> The other possible failure mode is forgetting to remove calls to the two
> trigger functions, but we could encourage getting that right by renaming
> those two functions.

While I don't really like the possibility of breaking third party 
modules, I think the idea is good.  Also +1 for adding checks where 
possible.


Regards,
Marko Tiikkaja