From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Remove dependency on HeapTuple from predicate locking functions. |
Date: | 2020-01-28 19:39:48 |
Message-ID: | 27300.1580240388@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 4:05 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> There is absolutely no question that the original coding is illegal
>> per spec, and it isn't even a particularly useful shorthand; so why
>> can't we get even a warning about it?
> $ cc -c -Wpedantic test.c
> test.c:2:12: warning: void function 'g' should not return void
> expression [-Wpedantic]
> void g() { return f(); }
> ^ ~~~
> 1 warning generated.
> Many other constructs in PostgreSQL are rejected by that switch,
> though, and I don't see a way to ask for just that one warning.
Yeah, -Wpedantic is a little *too* pedantic I'm afraid. Oh well.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-01-28 22:26:48 | pgsql: Fix dangling pointer in EvalPlanQual machinery. |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2020-01-28 19:18:30 | Re: pgsql: Remove dependency on HeapTuple from predicate locking functions. |