Re: Experimenting with hash tables inside pg_dump

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Experimenting with hash tables inside pg_dump
Date: 2021-10-25 18:39:46
Message-ID: 20211025183946.dv4gsa24stjggmm4@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2021-10-25 13:58:06 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> >> Seems like we need a less quick-and-dirty approach to dealing with
> >> unnecessary simplehash support functions.
>
> > I don't think the problem is unnecessary ones?
>
> I was thinking about the stuff like SH_ITERATE, which you might or
> might not have use for in any particular file. In the case at hand
> here, a file that doesn't call SH_INSERT would be at risk of getting
> unused-function complaints about SH_GROW. But as you say, if we do
> find that happening, __attribute__((unused)) would probably be
> enough to silence it.

I was hoping that a reference from a static inline function ought to be
sufficient to prevent warning about an unused-static-not-inline function, even
if the referencing static inline function is unused... It does work that way
with at least the last few versions of gcc (tested 8-11) and clang (tested 6.0
to 13).

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikolay Samokhvalov 2021-10-25 18:41:03 Re: lastOverflowedXid does not handle transaction ID wraparound
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2021-10-25 18:30:48 Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers)