2018-04-05 21:01 GMT+02:00 Peter Eisentraut < peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com>:
> On 4/4/18 14:03, Tomas Vondra wrote: > >> If there's really no other way, you could use a PG_TRY block to > >> ensure that the pointer gets reset on the way out. But I question > >> why we've got a design that requires that in the first place. It's > >> likely to have more problems than this. > > > > I agree it needs a solution that does not require us to track and > > manually reset pointers on random places. No argument here. > > I've committed a fix with PG_TRY. > > A more complete solution would be to able to keep the plan independent > of a resowner. That would require a bit more deep surgery in SPI, it > seems. I'll take a look if it's doable. > The issues that I detected in plpgsql_check are fixed Thank you Pavel > > -- > Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ > PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services >
