On 2016-11-14 12:32:53 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <hlinn...@iki.fi> writes: > > On 11/14/2016 06:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >> You're implicitly assuming that a scan always returns its results in the > >> same slot, and that no other slot could contain a copy of that data, but > >> there is no guarantee of either. See bug #14344 and d8589946d for a > >> pretty recent example where that failed to be true --- admittedly, for > >> a tuplesort scan not a table scan. > > > It's the other way round. ExecProcNode might not always return its > > result in the same slot, but all the callers must assume that it might. > > Basically my concern is that this restriction isn't documented anywhere > and I'm not entirely certain it's been adhered to everywhere. I'd feel > much better about it if there were some way we could verify that.
Would support for valgrind complaining about access to unpinned buffers suffice? Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers