On Mon, Jan 16, 2023 at 11:29 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Xing Guo <higuox...@gmail.com> writes: > > Are there any unsafe codes in pltcl.c? The return statement is in the > > PG_CATCH() block, I think the exception stack has been recovered in > > PG_CATCH block so the return statement in PG_CATCH block should be ok? > > Yes, the stack has already been unwound at the start of a PG_CATCH > (or PG_FINALLY) block, so there is no reason to avoid returning > out of those. > > In principle you could also mess things up with a "continue", "break", > or "goto" leading out of PG_TRY. That's probably far less likely > than "return", but I wonder whether Andres' compiler hack will > catch that. > > regards, tom lane > Thank you Tom, Based on your comments, I've refactored my clang checker[1], now it can warn about the following patterns: 1. return statement in PG_TRY(). We've catched all of them in this thread. 2. continue statement in PG_TRY() *unless* it's in for/while/do-while statements. 3. break statement in PG_TRY() *unless* it's in for/while/do-while/switch statements. 4. goto statement in PG_TRY() *unless* the label it points to is in the same PG_TRY block. Good news is that, there's no patterns (2, 3, 4) in Postgres source tree and we've catched all of the return statements in the PG_TRY block in this thread. [1] https://github.com/higuoxing/clang-plugins/blob/main/lib/ReturnInPgTryBlockChecker.cpp Best Regards, Xing
