From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: What is lurking in the shadows? |
Date: | 2021-05-18 02:08:57 |
Message-ID: | CAHut+PvPtYS3GV9kkSkTkSUji-qk55J2w_ogm01HsCD8J3OxgQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 11:16 AM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 May 2021 at 12:00, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > That bug led me to wonder if similar problems might be going
> > undetected elsewhere in the code. There is a gcc compiler option [3]
> > -Wshadow which informs about the similar scenario where one variable
> > is "shadowing" another (e.g. redeclaring a variable with the same name
> > as one at an outer scope).
>
> > For now, I am not sure how to proceed with this information. Hence this post...
>
> I'm inclined to think that since a bug has already been found due to a
> local variable shadowing a global one that it would be good to review
> these and then consider if it's worth doing any renaming. I think the
> process of looking at each warning individually will allow us to
> determine if; a) there are any bugs, or; b) if it's worth doing any
> renaming.
>
Hi David, Michael - Thanks for your replies.
Yeah, I would like to work my way through all of these warnings in my
spare time and report back to this thread (after 1-2 months?) with a
detailed analysis.
After that it should become much clearer what / if any action should
be taken next.
----------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-05-18 02:11:00 | RE: Skip partition tuple routing with constant partition key |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-05-18 01:49:39 | Re: Rewriting the test of pg_upgrade as a TAP test - take three - remastered set |