From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: sockaddr_un.sun_len vs. reality |
Date: | 2022-02-14 14:52:16 |
Message-ID: | 2842906.1644850336@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 1:19 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> For a very long time, the AIX 7.1 buildfarm members (sungazer and tern)
>> have complained about
>> ip.c:236:17: warning: conversion from 'long unsigned int' to 'uchar_t' {aka 'unsigned char'} changes value from '1025' to '1' [-Woverflow]
> It's not real clear to me that it's worth complicating the code to
> avoid a harmless compiler warning on an 11-year-old operating system
> with minimal real-world usage. On the other hand, if you really feel
> motivated to do something about it, I'm not here to argue.
Basically, yesterday's discussion motivated me to try to clean up some
of the stray buildfarm warnings I've been ignoring for a long time.
I agree it doesn't look like this change would have any real-world
impact. But we do set some value on warning-free builds, if only to
save ourselves having to remember "this warning is harmless".
> My one
> suggestion is that if you do add some strange incantation here along
> the lines you propose, you should at least add a comment explaining
> that it was done to suppress a warning on AIX 7.1.
But of course.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2022-02-14 14:53:21 | Re: Identify missing publications from publisher while create/alter subscription. |
Previous Message | Ashutosh Sharma | 2022-02-14 14:44:11 | Re: Make mesage at end-of-recovery less scary. |