Em qua., 5 de jun. de 2024 às 02:04, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> escreveu:
> On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 01:12:41PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > > At Mon, 27 May 2024 11:31:24 -0300, Ranier Vilela <ranier...@gmail.com> > wrote in > >> The function *plpgsql_inline_handler* can use uninitialized > >> variable retval, if PG_TRY fails. > >> Fix like function*plpgsql_call_handler* wich declare retval as > >> volatile and initialize to (Datum 0). > > You forgot to read elog.h, explaining under which circumstances > variables related to TRY/CATCH block should be marked as volatile. > There is a big "Note:" paragraph. > > It is not the first time that this is mentioned on this list: but > sending a report without looking at the reason why a change is > justified makes everybody waste time. That's not productive. > Of course, this is very bad when it happens. > > > If PG_TRY fails, retval is not actually accessed, so no real issue > > exists. Commit 7292fd8f1c changed plpgsql_call_handler() to the > > current form, but as stated in its commit message, it did not fix a > > real issue and was solely to silence compiler. > > This complain was from lapwing, that uses a version of gcc which > produces a lot of noise with incorrect issues. It is one of the only > 32b buildfarm members, so it still has a lot of value. > I posted the report, because of an uninitialized variable warning. Which is one of the most problematic situations, when it *actually exists*. > > I believe we do not need to modify plpgsql_inline_handler() unless > > compiler actually issues a false warning for it. > > If we were to do something, that would be to remove the volatile from > plpgsql_call_handler() at the end once we don't have in the buildfarm > compilers that complain about it, because there is no reason to use a > volatile in this case. :) > I don't see any motivation, since there are no reports. best regards, Ranier Vilela
