Re: Confused coding in PLy_traceback()

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Confused coding in PLy_traceback()
Date: 2025-06-01 19:05:37
Message-ID: 3395263.1748804737@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> So I propose the attached. For ease of review, I've not re-indented
> the code that needs to move inside PG_TRY blocks. Also, I dropped the
> logic about pfree'ing the string buffers in PLy_elog_impl's PG_FINALLY
> block: that doesn't seem necessary, and continuing to do it would
> require making those things volatile which is notationally messy.

Pushed. After sleeping on it I decided that removing the pfree's
would be a poor tradeoff, as it's not clear how long those allocations
might survive otherwise. The extra "volatile" markers for "xmsg"
and "tbmsg" aren't that big a deal. Trying to mark "emsg" as volatile
would be problematic because none of the StringInfo routines are set
up to allow that, but it shouldn't be a problem because that struct
will surely be on the stack.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2025-06-02 03:03:50 Re: pgsql: postgres_fdw: Inherit the local transaction's access/deferrable
Previous Message Alexander Lakhin 2025-06-01 19:00:01 Re: Improving tracking/processing of buildfarm test failures