| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Remove no-op pull_var_clause flag |
| Date: | 2026-01-22 01:45:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs48wk5Oc-qwkWLkNUzApa=T2gahNE+PwCNNY2Y7ZXhK30Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 3:27 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Alexander Pyhalov <a(dot)pyhalov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> > While merging PostgreSQL to our (Shardman) fork, I've noticed that it
> > uses the same pull_var_clause() flag as we do (coming from
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFjFpRc8ZoDm0%2Bzhx%2BMckwGyEqkOzWcpVqbvjaxwdGarZSNrmA%40mail.gmail.com)
> > I was a bit surprised, the patch hasn't landed to master. But flag
> > somehow slipped in (but only as no-op). The attached patch removes
> > useless flag.
> Right, done.
Ugh... I wonder how this happened, and whether this is the only
instance of private code sneaking into the PostgreSQL codebase. I'm
also kind of concerned about the legal risk if this comes from a
project with a strict license.
Should we also remove this code from v18?
- Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2026-01-22 01:56:41 | Re: Likely undefined behavior with some flexible arrays |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2026-01-22 01:41:30 | Re: Flush some statistics within running transactions |