From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: compiler warning in set_tablefunc_size_estimates |
Date: | 2017-03-09 22:11:20 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ7R7DLupJDmK=fW4_qqck6vrwp_BLLmwoa==XX7o5LZQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> I tried a non-cassert compile on a machine that has a pickier compiler
>> than my laptop, and got:
>
>> costsize.c: In function ‘set_tablefunc_size_estimates’:
>> costsize.c:4574:17: error: variable ‘rte’ set but not used
>> [-Werror=unused-but-set-variable]
>
>> That appears to be a legitimate gripe. Perhaps:
>
> I think PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY would be a better solution. It's
> only happenstance that the function currently uses the RTE just
> for this; if it grows another use, your approach would be harder
> to clean up.
Yeah, we might have to revert the entire -4/+1 line patch.
Actually, the thing I don't like about that is that that then we're
still emitting code for the planner_rt_fetch. That probably doesn't
cost much, but why do it?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2017-03-09 22:25:51 | Re: rename pg_log directory? |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2017-03-09 22:03:48 | Re: Enabling replication connections by default in pg_hba.conf |