Re: BUG #18059: Unexpected error 25001 in stored procedure

I wrote:
> I started to code this, and immediately noticed that transformStmt()
> already has a companion function analyze_requires_snapshot() that
> returns "true" in the cases of interest ... except that it does
> not return true for T_CallStmt.  Perhaps that was intentional to
> begin with, but it is very hard to believe that it isn't a bug now,
> since transformCallStmt can invoke nearly arbitrary processing via
> transformExpr().  What semantic anomalies, if any, do we risk if CALL
> processing forces a transaction start?  (I rather imagine it does
> already, somewhere later on...)

I poked around some more, and determined that there should not be any
new semantic anomalies if analyze_requires_snapshot starts returning
true for CallStmts, because ExecuteCallStmt already acquires and
releases a snapshot before invoking the procedure (at least in the
non-atomic case, which is the one of interest here).  I spent some
time trying to devise a test case showing it's broken, and did not
succeed: the fact that we disallow sub-SELECTs in CALL arguments makes
it a lot harder than I'd expected to reach anyplace that would require
having a transaction snapshot set.  Nonetheless, I have very little
faith that such a scenario doesn't exist today, and even less that
we won't add one in future.  The only real reason I can see for not
setting a snapshot here is as a micro-optimization.  While that's
not without value, it seems hard to argue that CALL deserves an
optimization that SELECT doesn't get.

I also realized that ReturnStmts are likewise missing from
analyze_requires_snapshot().  This is probably unreachable, because
ReturnStmt can only appear in a SQL-language function and I can't
think of a scenario where we'd be parsing one outside a transaction.
Nonetheless it seems hard to argue that this is an optimization
we need to keep.

Hence I propose the attached patch, which invents
stmt_requires_parse_analysis() and makes analyze_requires_snapshot()
into an alias for it, so that all these statement types are treated
alike.  I made the adjacent comments a lot more opinionated, too,
in hopes that future additions won't overlook these concerns.

The actual bug fix is in plancache.c.  I decided to invert the tests
in plancache.c, because the macro really needed renaming anyway and
it seemed to read better this way.  I also noticed that
ResetPlanCache() already tries to optimize away invalidation of
utility statements, but that logic seems no longer necessary ---
what's more, it's outright wrong for CALL, because that does need
invalidation and won't get it.  (I have not tried to build a test
case proving that that's broken, but surely it is.)

Barring objections, this needs to be back-patched as far as v11.

			regards, tom lane