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.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
