Re: Compiler warning in costsize.c

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Compiler warning in costsize.c
Date: 2017-04-11 00:53:45
Message-ID: CAB7nPqQY5LWLUW1ASL0i1uXj+a7GMK0z19vBV1QgdxA+JptKeg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes:
>>> Why bother with the 'rte' variable at all if it's only used for the
>>> Assert()ing the rtekind?
>>
>> That was proposed a few messages back. I don't like it because it makes
>> these functions look different from the other scan-cost-estimation
>> functions, and we'd just have to undo the "optimization" if they ever
>> grow a need to reference the rte for another purpose.
>
> I think that's sort of silly, though. It's a trivial difference,
> neither likely to confuse anyone nor difficult to undo.

+1. I would just do that and call it a day. There is no point to do a
mandatory list lookup as that's just for an assertion, and fixing this
warning does not seem worth the addition of fancier facilities. If the
function declarations were doubly-nested in the code, I would
personally consider the use of a variable, but not here.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2017-04-11 00:54:52 Re: ExecPrepareExprList and per-query context
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-04-10 23:59:31 Re: [sqlsmith] ERROR: badly formatted node string "RESTRICTINFO...