MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CAHg+QDcN-n3NUqgRtj=BQb9fFQmH8-DeEROCr=PDbw_BBRKOYA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdsZ6YrzX-5uenwvw1VXuG7mpBXSOT6JFTg6aCCC0SaNEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHg+QDevycEwWfTMJ6ADZQJR9YSMcsAf=Dg=vH2R8Efcx1NH1w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpHfdtJ_oZ3qJvXWAtOV4k02=m1P6AQUgoBofNgytQ3KyotbQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3cc93f9.1ab.19d74a26acf.Coremail.wxp_728@163.com>
 <CABPTF7UaXNab-LNyR5jDEu=FpGG_vZSOYqwxzyKrw+60Y5sCJw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABPTF7UaXNab-LNyR5jDEu=FpGG_vZSOYqwxzyKrw+60Y5sCJw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2026 14:06:38 +0300
Message-ID: 
 <CAPpHfdts2dMoMvCbUtbYHYFXWbfi9WM-pz2ZzJwE3NaYcGsTWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Bug: WAIT FOR LSN crashes with assertion failure inside
 PL/pgSQL DO blocks and procedures
To: Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou@gmail.com>
Cc: "wang.xiao.peng" <wxp_728@163.com>,
 SATYANARAYANA NARLAPURAM <satyanarlapuram@gmail.com>,
	PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAPpHfdts2dMoMvCbUtbYHYFXWbfi9WM-pz2ZzJwE3NaYcGsTWg%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Apr 10, 2026 at 10:36=E2=80=AFAM Xuneng Zhou <xunengzhou@gmail.com>=
 wrote:
> I=E2=80=99ve revised the patch. Moving the non=E2=80=93top-level rejectio=
n to the
> beginning of the function may help avoid unnecessary parsing and
> validation work, although it could make the reasoning slightly less
> localized.
>
> Since this is user-facing, should we explicitly document this
> constraint to make the behavior less surprising? The rejection applies
> not only to wrapping the command in a procedure or function, but also
> within a DO block.
>
> It might also be worth adding a regression test and refining the error
> message accordingly. With this new constraint, some existing comments
> were outdated and have been updated as well.

Accepted, thank you.  Also, I've added errdetail() to clarify when the
statement could be not top-level.  Pushed.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov
Supabase