Re: duplicate function declaration in multirangetypes_selfuncs.c

On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 2:21 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin(dot)elfe(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 15:14, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
> >
> > > On 21 Apr 2023, at 12:58, Anton Voloshin <a(dot)voloshin(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 21/04/2023 13:45, Pavel Borisov wrote:
> > >> The patch is attached. Anyone to commit?
> > >
> > > Speaking of duplicates, I just found another one:
> > > > break;
> > > > break;
> > > in src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/variable.c
> > > (in all stable branches).
> >
> > Indeed, coming in via 086cf1458 it's over a decade old.
> >
> > > Additional patch attached. Or both could go in the same commit, it's up to committer.
> >
> > I'll take care of these in a bit (unless someone finds more, or objects)
> > backpatching them to their respective origins branches.
> >
> > --
> > Daniel Gustafsson
> Technically patches 0001 and 0002 in the thread above don't form
> patchset i.e. 0002 will not apply over 0001. Fixed this in v2.
> (They could be merged into one but as they fix completely unrelated
> things, I think a better way to commit them separately.)

I wonder if we should backpatch this. On the one hand, this is not
critical, and we may skip backpatching. On the other hand,
backpatching will evade unnecessary code differences between major
versions and potentially simplify further backpatching.

I would prefer backpathing. Other opinions?

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov