plpython_error_callback() reported the name of the function associated
with the topmost PL/Python execution context. This was not merely
wrong if there were nested PL/Python contexts, but it risked a core
dump if the topmost one is an inline code block rather than a named
function. That will have proname = NULL, and so we were passing a NULL
pointer to snprintf("%s"). It seems that none of the PL/Python-testing
machines in the buildfarm will dump core for that, but some platforms do,
as reported by Marina Polyakova.
Investigation finds that there actually is an existing regression test
that used to prove that the behavior was wrong, though apparently no one
had noticed that it was printing the wrong function name. It stopped
showing the problem in 9.6 when we adjusted psql to not print CONTEXT
by default for NOTICE messages. The problem is masked (if your platform
avoids the core dump) in error cases, because PL/Python will throw away
the originally generated error info in favor of a new traceback produced
at the outer level.
Repair by using ErrorContextCallback.arg to pass the correct context to
the error callback. Add a regression test illustrating correct behavior.
Back-patch to all supported branches, since they're all broken this way.
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/156b989dbc6fe7c4d3223cf51da61195@postgrespro.ru
Remove the code in plpgsql that suppressed the innermost line of CONTEXT
for messages emitted by RAISE commands. That was never more than a quick
backwards-compatibility hack, and it's pretty silly in cases where the
RAISE is nested in several levels of function. What's more, it violated
our design theory that verbosity of error reports should be controlled
on the client side not the server side.
To alleviate the resulting noise increase, introduce a feature in libpq
and psql whereby the CONTEXT field of messages can be suppressed, either
always or only for non-error messages. Printing CONTEXT for errors only
is now their default behavior.
The actual code changes here are pretty small, but the effects on the
regression test outputs are widespread. I had to edit some of the
alternative expected outputs by hand; hopefully the buildfarm will soon
find anything I fat-fingered.
In passing, fix up (again) the output line counts in psql's various
help displays. Add some commentary about how to verify them.
Pavel Stehule, reviewed by Petr Jelínek, Jeevan Chalke, and others
If a PL/Python function raises an SPIError (or one if its subclasses)
directly with python's raise statement, treat it the same as an SPIError
generated internally. In particular, if the user sets the sqlstate
attribute, preserve that.
Oskari Saarenmaa and Jan Urbański, reviewed by Karl O. Pinc.
Don't quote the output of format_procedure(); it's already quoted quite
enough. Remove the fn_name field, which was now just dead weight. Fix
remaining expected-output files.
exception handler. This was a regression in 9.1, when the capability
to catch specific SPI errors was added, so backpatch to 9.1.
Mika Eloranta, with some editing by Jan Urbański.
This provides a separate exception class for each error code that the
backend defines, as well as the ability to get the SQLSTATE from the
exception object.
Jan Urbański, reviewed by Steve Singer
This allows the language-specific try/catch construct to catch and
handle exceptions arising from SPI calls, matching the behavior of
other PLs.
As an additional bonus you no longer get all the ugly "unrecognized
error in PLy_spi_execute_query" errors.
Jan Urbański, reviewed by Steve Singer
Global error handling led to confusion and was hard to manage. With
this change, errors from PostgreSQL are immediately reported to Python
as exceptions. This requires setting a Python exception after
reporting the caught PostgreSQL error as a warning, because PLy_elog
destroys the Python exception state.
Ideally, all places where PostgreSQL errors need to be reported back
to Python should be wrapped in subtransactions, to make going back to
Python from a longjmp safe. This will be handled in a separate patch.
Jan Urbański
Mimic the Python interpreter's own logic for printing exceptions instead
of just using the straight str() call, so that
you get
plpy.SPIError
instead of
<class 'plpy.SPIError'>
and for built-in exceptions merely
UnicodeEncodeError
Besides looking better this cuts down on the endless version differences
in the regression test expected files.
This changes a bunch of incidentially used constructs in the PL/Python
regression tests to equivalent constructs in cases where Python 3 no longer
supports the old syntax. Support for older Python versions is unchanged.
of the previous monolithic setup-create-run sequence, that was apparently
inherited from a previous test infrastructure, but makes working with the
tests and adding new ones weird.
Error messages from PL/Python now always mention the function name in the
CONTEXT: field. This also obsoletes the few places that tried to do the
same manually.
Regression test files are updated to work with Python 2.4-2.6. I don't have
access to older versions right now.
when a plpython function returns unicode" thread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-06/msg00105.php
In several places PL/Python was calling PyObject_Str() and then
PyString_AsString() without checking if the former had returned
NULL to indicate an error. PyString_AsString() doesn't expect a
NULL argument, so passing one causes a segmentation fault. This
patch adds checks for NULL and raises errors via PLy_elog(), which
prints details of the underlying Python exception. The patch also
adds regression tests for these checks. All tests pass on my
Solaris 9 box running HEAD and Python 2.4.1.
In one place the patch doesn't call PLy_elog() because that could
cause infinite recursion; see the comment I added. I'm not sure
how to test that particular case or whether it's even possible to
get an error there: the value that the code should check is the
Python exception type, so I wonder if a NULL value "shouldn't
happen." This patch converts NULL to "Unknown Exception" but I
wonder if an Assert() would be appropriate.
The patch is against HEAD but the same changes should be applied
to earlier versions because they have the same problem. The patch
might not apply cleanly against earlier versions -- will the committer
take care of little differences or should I submit different versions
of the patch?
Michael Fuhr
*fail*, to test that plpython didn't allow untrusted operations.
When we changed plpython to plpythonu because python didn't actually have
a secure sandbox mode, someone (probably me :-() misinterpreted the tests
as checking whether Python's file I/O works. Which is a stupid thing for
us to be testing. Remove it so we don't clutter the filesystem with
random temporary files.
Tom Lane