From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Odd behavior with PG_TRY |
Date: | 2017-01-03 03:47:28 |
Message-ID: | 31436.1483415248@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> writes:
> In the attached patch (snippet below), I'm seeing something strange with
> args->in.r.atts[].
Did you try comparing the apparent values of "args" before and after
entering PG_TRY?
> I saw the comment on PG_TRY about marking things as volatile, but my
> understanding from the comment is I shouldn't even need to do that,
> since these variables aren't being modified.
Not sure, but if you do need to mark them volatile to prevent
misoptimization in the PG_TRY, this is not how to do it:
> volatile TupleDesc desc = slot->tts_tupleDescriptor;
> volatile CallbackState *myState = (CallbackState *) self;
> volatile PLyTypeInfo *args = myState->args;
Correct coding would be
volatile TupleDesc desc = slot->tts_tupleDescriptor;
CallbackState * volatile myState = (CallbackState *) self;
PLyTypeInfo * volatile args = myState->args;
because what needs to be marked volatile is the pointer variable,
not what it points at. I'm a bit surprised you're not getting
"cast away volatile" warnings from the code as you have it.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2017-01-03 04:13:38 | Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM) |
Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-01-03 03:15:30 | Re: Odd behavior with PG_TRY |