From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: silence compiler warning in brin.c |
Date: | 2022-06-01 21:30:13 |
Message-ID: | 20220601213013.GA2400888@nathanxps13 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 05:08:03PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Hmm, if we're following amcheck's example it should be more like this:
>
> diff --git a/src/backend/access/brin/brin.c b/src/backend/access/brin/brin.c
> index 52f171772d..0de1441dc6 100644
> --- a/src/backend/access/brin/brin.c
> +++ b/src/backend/access/brin/brin.c
> @@ -1051,7 +1051,13 @@ brin_summarize_range(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS)
> save_nestlevel = NewGUCNestLevel();
> }
> else
> + {
> heapRel = NULL;
> + /* Set these just to suppress "uninitialized variable" warnings */
> + save_userid = InvalidOid;
> + save_sec_context = -1;
> + save_nestlevel = -1;
> + }
>
> indexRel = index_open(indexoid, ShareUpdateExclusiveLock);
>
> I like this better anyway since the fact that the other two variables
> aren't warned about seems like an implementation artifact.
Yeah, that is better. It's not clear why the other variables aren't
subject to the same warnings, so we might as well cover our bases.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-06-01 22:43:06 | Re: Prevent writes on large objects in read-only transactions |
Previous Message | Jacob Champion | 2022-06-01 21:29:06 | Re: [PATCH] Compression dictionaries for JSONB |