On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Jim Nasby <jim.na...@bluetreble.com> wrote: > On 8/31/16 2:57 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: > Seems like a good idea, I'm guessing it slipped through the cracks. Do you > want to add it to the next CF?
0001 has been pushed as d062245b. > Why mark one as volatile but not the other? Based on [1] ISTM there's no need > to mark either as volatile? plan_cxt is referenced in the PG_TRY block, and then modified in the PG_CATCH block, so it seems to me that we had better mark it as volatile to be POSIX-compliant. That's not the case of oldcontext. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
