Move SPI error reporting out of ri_ReportViolation()

petere · petere · commit 582bbcf37fb4 · 2017-10-04T22:14:21.000-04:00
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 &lt;michael.paquier@gmail.com&gt;
diff --git 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.
