Re: duplicate function declaration in multirangetypes_selfuncs.c

On Sun, Apr 23, 2023 at 3:36 PM Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> wrote:
> > On 23 Apr 2023, at 13:59, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> I had planned to backpatch these two fixes for just that reason, to avoid the risk for other backpatches not applying.

OK. I'm good with this plan.

------
Regards,
Alexander Korotkov