From 582bbcf37fb45ea2e6a851bf9a3c7d7364c7ad32 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2017 22:16:50 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] 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 <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
---
src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c | 29 +++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c b/src/backend/utils/adt/ri_triggers.c
index c2891e6fa1..b63a7775b7 100644
--- 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.