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
