Em qua., 5 de jun. de 2024 às 02:04, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> escreveu:
On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 01:12:41PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Mon, 27 May 2024 11:31:24 -0300, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com> wrote in >> The function *plpgsql_inline_handler* can use uninitialized >> variable retval, if PG_TRY fails. >> Fix like function*plpgsql_call_handler* wich declare retval as >> volatile and initialize to (Datum 0).
You forgot to read elog.h, explaining under which circumstances variables related to TRY/CATCH block should be marked as volatile. There is a big "Note:" paragraph.
It is not the first time that this is mentioned on this list: but sending a report without looking at the reason why a change is justified makes everybody waste time. That's not productive.
Of course, this is very bad when it happens.
> If PG_TRY fails, retval is not actually accessed, so no real issue > exists. Commit 7292fd8f1c changed plpgsql_call_handler() to the > current form, but as stated in its commit message, it did not fix a > real issue and was solely to silence compiler.
This complain was from lapwing, that uses a version of gcc which produces a lot of noise with incorrect issues. It is one of the only 32b buildfarm members, so it still has a lot of value.
I posted the report, because of an uninitialized variable warning. Which is one of the most problematic situations, when it *actually exists*.
> I believe we do not need to modify plpgsql_inline_handler() unless > compiler actually issues a false warning for it.
If we were to do something, that would be to remove the volatile from plpgsql_call_handler() at the end once we don't have in the buildfarm compilers that complain about it, because there is no reason to use a volatile in this case. :)
I don't see any motivation, since there are no reports.
