On 2015-01-26 11:18:41 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Also and perhaps more to the point, I'm no longer convinced that this sort > of thing doesn't require any volatile markers. The fundamental problem > we're hitting with PG_TRY is that the compiler is optimizing on the > assumption that no "unexpected" touches/changes of local variables can > happen as a result of unexpected control flow. I think it might still be > willing to optimize away superficially-dead stores even if you structure > stuff as above. We need to take a closer look at the uses of > PG_ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP as well ...
Robert's premise was that the new notion doesn't allow catching an error. If the state that's passed isn't endangered (because it's marked volatile :(), then there's no danger with the bit after the CATCH block. That's obviously not the case for ENSURE_ERROR_CLEANUP. That definitely needs volatiles for stuff that's referenced after the TRY block if modified inside. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
