| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: GCC 7 warnings |
| Date: | 2017-04-11 17:57:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20170411175708.coshtfzejgaqhar2@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > d) Replace most of the problematic code with psprintf() and dynamically
> > sized buffers.
>
> +1 for (c) as you have it. Later we might think about selectively
> doing (d), but it seems like more work for probably not much benefit.
Yeah -- also it's possible some of these code paths must not attempt to
palloc() for robustness reasons. I would go for c) only for now, and
only try d) for very specific cases where there are no such concerns.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-04-11 18:08:49 | Re: TAP tests take a long time |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-04-11 17:57:04 | Re: Possible problem in Custom Scan API |