@@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ static void ri_ExtractValues(Relation rel, HeapTuple tup,
242242static void ri_ReportViolation (const RI_ConstraintInfo * riinfo ,
243243Relation pk_rel ,Relation fk_rel ,
244244HeapTuple violator ,TupleDesc tupdesc ,
245- int queryno , bool spi_err );
245+ int queryno ) pg_attribute_noreturn ( );
246246
247247
248248/* ----------
@@ -2499,7 +2499,7 @@ RI_Initial_Check(Trigger *trigger, Relation fk_rel, Relation pk_rel)
24992499ri_ReportViolation (& fake_riinfo ,
25002500pk_rel ,fk_rel ,
25012501tuple ,tupdesc ,
2502- RI_PLAN_CHECK_LOOKUPPK , false );
2502+ RI_PLAN_CHECK_LOOKUPPK );
25032503}
25042504
25052505if (SPI_finish ()!= SPI_OK_FINISH )
@@ -3147,11 +3147,13 @@ ri_PerformCheck(const RI_ConstraintInfo *riinfo,
31473147elog (ERROR ,"SPI_execute_snapshot returned %d" ,spi_result );
31483148
31493149if (expect_OK >=0 && spi_result != expect_OK )
3150- ri_ReportViolation (riinfo ,
3151- pk_rel ,fk_rel ,
3152- new_tuple ?new_tuple :old_tuple ,
3153- NULL ,
3154- qkey -> constr_queryno , true);
3150+ ereport (ERROR ,
3151+ (errcode (ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR ),
3152+ errmsg ("referential integrity query on \"%s\" from constraint \"%s\" on \"%s\" gave unexpected result" ,
3153+ RelationGetRelationName (pk_rel ),
3154+ NameStr (riinfo -> conname ),
3155+ RelationGetRelationName (fk_rel )),
3156+ errhint ("This is most likely due to a rule having rewritten the query." )));
31553157
31563158/* XXX wouldn't it be clearer to do this part at the caller? */
31573159if (qkey -> constr_queryno != RI_PLAN_CHECK_LOOKUPPK_FROM_PK &&
@@ -3161,7 +3163,7 @@ ri_PerformCheck(const RI_ConstraintInfo *riinfo,
31613163pk_rel ,fk_rel ,
31623164new_tuple ?new_tuple :old_tuple ,
31633165NULL ,
3164- qkey -> constr_queryno , false );
3166+ qkey -> constr_queryno );
31653167
31663168return SPI_processed != 0 ;
31673169}
@@ -3205,7 +3207,7 @@ static void
32053207ri_ReportViolation (const RI_ConstraintInfo * riinfo ,
32063208Relation pk_rel ,Relation fk_rel ,
32073209HeapTuple violator ,TupleDesc tupdesc ,
3208- int queryno , bool spi_err )
3210+ int queryno )
32093211{
32103212StringInfoData key_names ;
32113213StringInfoData key_values ;
@@ -3216,15 +3218,6 @@ ri_ReportViolation(const RI_ConstraintInfo *riinfo,
32163218AclResult aclresult ;
32173219bool has_perm = true;
32183220
3219- if (spi_err )
3220- ereport (ERROR ,
3221- (errcode (ERRCODE_INTERNAL_ERROR ),
3222- errmsg ("referential integrity query on \"%s\" from constraint \"%s\" on \"%s\" gave unexpected result" ,
3223- RelationGetRelationName (pk_rel ),
3224- NameStr (riinfo -> conname ),
3225- RelationGetRelationName (fk_rel )),
3226- errhint ("This is most likely due to a rule having rewritten the query." )));
3227-
32283221/*
32293222 * Determine which relation to complain about. If tupdesc wasn't passed
32303223 * by caller, assume the violator tuple came from there.