| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Odd behavior with PG_TRY |
| Date: | 2017-01-06 18:59:13 |
| Message-ID: | CACjxUsOas==3bidEaapsnr37SuRY3_gVoAbJ+AKDbberAGTe1A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 5:43 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> If a variable is modified within PG_TRY and then referenced in
> PG_CATCH it needs to be marked as volatile to be strictly in
> conformance with POSIX. This also ensures that any compiler does not
> do any stupid optimizations with those variables in the way they are
> referenced and used.
That sort of begs the question of why PG_exception_stack is not
marked as volatile, since the macros themselves modify it within
the PG_TRY block and reference it within the PG_CATCH block. Is
there some reason this variable is immune to the problem?
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Verite | 2017-01-06 19:15:13 | Off-by-one oddity in minval for decreasing sequences |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2017-01-06 18:36:54 | Re: merging some features from plpgsql2 project |