From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
cc: Yura Sokolov <y.sokolov@postgrespro.ru>,
        pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Add PortalDrop in exec_execute_message
In-reply-to: <202105262059.dnf27qpnccuv@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <202105262059.dnf27qpnccuv@alvherre.pgsql>
Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
	message dated "Wed, 26 May 2021 16:59:17 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1664094.1622063992.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2021 17:19:52 -0400
Message-ID: <1664095.1622063992@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1664095.1622063992%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> (I didn't add a Close Portal message to PQsendQueryInternal in pipeline
> mode precisely because there is no such message in PQsendQueryGuts.
> I think it would be wrong to unconditionally add a Close Portal message
> to any of those places.)

Yeah, I'm not very comfortable with having libpq take it on itself
to do that, either.

Looking back at the original complaint, it seems like it'd be fair to
wonder why we're still holding a page pin in a supposedly completed
executor run.  Maybe the right fix is somewhere in the executor
scan logic.

			regards, tom lane