| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Is abort() still needed in WalSndShutdown()? |
| Date: | 2026-01-27 02:58:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAHGQGwFaOJ_obx-XjwLmZW2sF7a9RqeOO4jxkKpG18GaFoiu=Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 9:33 PM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
> Yeah. Nowadays pg_noreturn is understood by all supported compilers.
> There are no guarantees on what the compiler will do with the
> information, but I would expect it to silence that warning on any
> half-decent compiler. (But as discussed, this is moot anyway because the
> returns 'void')
>
> > I'm thinking to remove the abort() call from WalSndShutdown() in the
> > attached patch.
>
> +1
Thanks for the check! I've pushed the patch.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2026-01-27 03:00:13 | Re: Batching in executor |
| Previous Message | Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) | 2026-01-27 02:39:11 | RE: Fix logical decoding not track transaction during SNAPBUILD_BUILDING_SNAPSHOT |