On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 13:17, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Alex Hunsaker <badalex@gmail.com> writes:
>> You get a segfault as we try to SvREFCNT_dec(...);
>
> Hmm. I don't see a segfault on my machine, but I agree that this looks
> bogus. I changed it to this order instead:
> [ ... ]
> so as to keep the "state restore" operations together.
Even better Thanks!