Feedback-ID: ie3de48e3:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 14:33:14 +0200
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>, exclusion@gmail.com,
	pgsql-bugs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: BUG #18984: Empty prepared statement from psql \parse triggers
 assert in PortalRunMulti
Message-ID: <202507151233.n5jw4x3jtc2g@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="whnk3kdrd6zf7kgd"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <834745.1752555566@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/202507151233.n5jw4x3jtc2g%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk


--whnk3kdrd6zf7kgd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 2025-Jul-15, Tom Lane wrote:

> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> > ... I am wondering if we should not just nuke the assertion at the end
> > of PortalRunMulti() instead, relying on the same check done at the
> > beginning of ProcessUtility().
> 
> Yeah, I was starting to think about that solution too.  Removing
> code seems nicer than adding more.

Yeah, this makes sense to me too.  I'd rewrite the comment while at it,
because what's being described as "printing 0 0" no longer occurs in
this form in this place anymore.  Maybe we could discuss adding
some commentary to EndCommand where this now happens, but I don't think
we really need it.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

--whnk3kdrd6zf7kgd
Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: attachment;
	filename="0001-Remove-assertion-in-PortalRunMulti-simplify-comment.patch"