| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sergey Shinderuk <s(dot)shinderuk(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: gcc -Wclobbered in PostgresMain |
| Date: | 2023-07-10 16:17:19 |
| Message-ID: | 2231130.1689005839@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Sergey Shinderuk <s(dot)shinderuk(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> On 08.07.2023 18:11, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Having done that, it wouldn't really be necessary to mark these
>> as volatile. I kept that marking anyway for consistency with
>> send_ready_for_query, but perhaps we shouldn't?
> I don't know. Maybe marking them volatile is more future proof. Not sure.
Yeah, after sleeping on it, it seems best to have a policy that all
variables declared in that place are volatile. Even if there's no bug
now, not having volatile creates a risk of surprising behavior after
future changes. Pushed that way.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Matthias van de Meent | 2023-07-10 16:18:12 | Re: PATCH: Using BRIN indexes for sorted output |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2023-07-10 15:44:39 | Re: Performance degradation on concurrent COPY into a single relation in PG16. |