Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
