From: | Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: silence compiler warning in brin.c |
Date: | 2022-06-01 17:38:24 |
Message-ID: | 20220601173824.GA2396891@nathanxps13 |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 01:06:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Zhihong Yu <zyu(at)yugabyte(dot)com> writes:
>> It seems the variable can be initialized to the value of GUCNestLevel since
>> later in the func:
>> /* Roll back any GUC changes executed by index functions */
>> AtEOXact_GUC(false, save_nestlevel);
>
> That seems pretty inappropriate. If, thanks to some future thinko,
> control were able to reach the AtEOXact_GUC call despite not having
> called NewGUCNestLevel, we'd want that to fail.
+1
> It looks like
> AtEOXact_GUC asserts nestLevel > 0, so that either 0 or -1 would
> do as an "invalid" value; I'd lean a bit to using 0.
I only chose -1 to follow a117ceb's example in amcheck. I have no
preference.
--
Nathan Bossart
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | vignesh C | 2022-06-01 17:38:40 | Re: Handle infinite recursion in logical replication setup |
Previous Message | David G. Johnston | 2022-06-01 17:35:55 | Re: Assorted small doc patches |