On Sun Jun 21, 2026 at 4:40 PM -03, Tom Lane wrote:
> "Matheus Alcantara" <matheusssilv97@gmail.com> writes:
>> Thanks for the review! I've tried to address all your points in the
>> attached v2.
>
> Pushed after a round of review. I made some mostly-cosmetic changes,
> such as rewriting comments (consolidating some stuff I thought was
> duplicative). The main thing I fixed that was an actual bug was
> you were careless about lifespan of variables around PG_TRY blocks.
> The rule of thumb is that if a variable is modified inside PG_TRY
> and then used after that block (including in the PG_CATCH) then it
> has to be marked volatile. Where possible, I avoid using the
> volatile marking by assigning the variable's value before PG_TRY.
>
Noted, thanks for the call.
>> I've also added a regression test, not sure if there is a better way to
>> exercise this fix but this test crash without this patch applied.
>
> Kind of a hokey test, since it doesn't model the likely actual case
> where the CREATE happens in another session, but this is as close as
> we'll get without a much more complex test setup. I kept it, and
> also added another test that exercises the early-termination path,
> since code coverage showed me that ShutdownPLyFunction() wasn't being
> reached.
>
Thank you for reviewing and committing the patch!
--
Matheus Alcantara
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
