Re: Fixing warnings in back branches?

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-12-14 10:55:05 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
>> Perhaps just adding some -Wno-* flags would make more sense than
>> changing code and possibly introducing bugs.

> I think that's a case-by-case decision. Just verbatimly backpatching
> something that stewed in master for a year or two seems fine. That's imo
> often preferrable because often it's just that existing warning
> categories grew more "vigilant", or however you want to describe it. So
> if you disable those, you also remove coverage...

Meh. If we thought that anything like that was an actual bug, we should
have back-patched the fix when removing the warning in HEAD. So I would
expect that all remaining warnings are just compiler nannyism, and thus
that fixing them is more likely to introduce bugs than do anything very
useful.

regards, tom lane