Re: Warning-suppression fixes we ought to back-patch

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Warning-suppression fixes we ought to back-patch
Date: 2026-02-25 15:55:30
Message-ID: 184946.1772034930@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2026 at 11:24:45AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 8f1791c61 Fix some cases of indirectly casting away const.

> Worth to also back-patch 9f7565c6c2d (as 8f1791c61 follow up)?

Good idea.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Maxim Orlov 2026-02-25 15:56:08 Re: POC: make mxidoff 64 bits
Previous Message Tom Lane 2026-02-25 15:52:22 Re: New isolation test insert-conflict-do-update-4 outputs rows in alternative ordering