From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Fixing MSVC's inability to detect elog(ERROR) does not return |
Date: | 2025-07-24 03:43:18 |
Message-ID: | 1571122.1753328598@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 2025 at 12:27, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Hmmm ... but you did check that in fact we can remove such known-dead
>> code and not get a warning now?
> Yes. The patch has a small temporary adjustment to
> BaseBackupGetTargetHandle() to comment out the return. It compiles for
> me using Visual Studio 2022 without any warnings. If I remove the
> macro change, I get:
> [598/2255] Compiling C object
> src/backend/postgres_lib.a.p/backup_basebackup_target.c.obj
> src\backend\backup\basebackup_target.c(150) : warning C4715:
> 'BaseBackupGetTargetHandle': not all control paths return a value
OK. I'd vote for going ahead and seeing what the buildfarm says.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Yugo Nagata | 2025-07-24 03:44:40 | Re: Suggestion to add --continue-client-on-abort option to pgbench |
Previous Message | shveta malik | 2025-07-24 03:42:17 | Re: Conflict detection for update_deleted in logical replication |