Date: Thu, 4 May 2023 16:42:35 -0700
From: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Xing Guo <higuoxing@gmail.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: PL/Python: Fix return in the middle of PG_TRY() block.
Message-ID: <20230504234235.GA2419591@nathanxps13>
References: <CACpMh+D9jz4Lq3qieoU2NkhGASqekhDXnXX2USW4mHa+SWNQag@mail.gmail.com>
 <1864041.1673882943@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20230120010711.jpqbaelpgmuvt2vq@awork3.anarazel.de>
 <20230120190201.GC4106863@nathanxps13>
 <20230503202116.GA2110623@nathanxps13>
 <3012766.1683146012@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <20230503205838.GA2112379@nathanxps13>
 <20230504045413.GA2202617@nathanxps13>
 <20230504050108.GA2203557@nathanxps13>
 <3200088.1683203943@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3200088.1683203943@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20230504234235.GA2419591%40nathanxps13>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 04, 2023 at 08:39:03AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm, I'm not sure why PLy_trigger_build_args's pltargs needs to
> gain a "volatile" here?  LGTM otherwise.

I removed that new "volatile" marker before committing.  I was trying to
future-proof a bit and follow elog.h's recommendation to the letter, but
following your mental model upthread, it doesn't seem to be strictly
necessary, and we'd need to set pltargs to NULL after decrementing its
reference count in the PG_TRY section for such future-proofing to be
effective, anyway.

Thank you for reviewing!

-- 
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com