On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 7:39 AM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@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