| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Confusing #if nesting in hmac_openssl.c |
| Date: | 2024-04-02 00:01:41 |
| Message-ID: | 1394271.1712016101@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I noticed that buildfarm member batfish has been complaining like
this for awhile:
hmac_openssl.c:90:1: warning: unused function 'ResourceOwnerRememberHMAC' [-Wunused-function]
hmac_openssl.c:95:1: warning: unused function 'ResourceOwnerForgetHMAC' [-Wunused-function]
Looking at the code, this is all from commit e6bdfd970, and apparently
batfish is our only animal that doesn't HAVE_HMAC_CTX_NEW. I tried to
understand the #if nesting and soon got very confused. I don't think
it is helpful to put the resource owner manipulations inside #ifdef
HAVE_HMAC_CTX_NEW and HAVE_HMAC_CTX_FREE --- probably, it would never
be the case that only one of those is defined, but it just seems
messy. What do you think of rearranging it as attached?
regards, tom lane
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| refactor-hmac-resowner-coding.patch | text/x-diff | 2.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-04-02 00:11:33 | Re: Why is parula failing? |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2024-04-01 23:59:11 | Re: Table AM Interface Enhancements |