From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-committers <pgsql-committers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: pgsql: Add missing "static" qualifier. |
Date: | 2016-02-12 22:49:04 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobEm4KmdMoG6MboQ0nA0DGDF98Kkys_MrnDECRAz=OvGw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Add missing "static" qualifier.
>>>
>>> Per buildfarm member pademelon.
>
>> Gah. Sorry I keep missing these.
>
> It's a pain that gcc won't warn about it. On the other hand, it's
> probably only neatnik-ism on my part to care; I do not know of any
> compilers that would actually give an error. It only seems worth
> fixing to me because whether a function is static or not is important
> information, so I like functions to be accurately labeled.
Yeah, I agree. I like it to be labeled correctly, too. I just keep
forgetting to check for it when reviewing, and people keep sending me
patches that do it incorrectly, and then I find out that I've muffed
it again when I see your commit. It would certainly be nice if gcc
had a warning for this.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2016-02-12 22:53:41 | pgsql: pg_upgrade: Add C comment about NextXID delimiter |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-12 22:47:43 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Add some isolation tests for deadlock detection and resolution. |