| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cleanup shadows variable warnings, round 1 |
| Date: | 2025-12-04 00:56:07 |
| Message-ID: | aTDcJ_BokHcQXRcW@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I don't know if we've agreed on a goal of getting rid of all shadowing, it's
> a lot of code churn. I agree shadowing is often confusing and error-prone,
> so maybe it's worth it.
(Providing my own context with more information on the matter, Peter
E. mentioning this commit upthread.)
As far as I know, the latest consensus with shadow variables was that
-Wshadow=compatible-local was OK for now, 0fe954c28584 mentioning that
we could consider a tighter -Wshadow=local later on. I don't recall a
clear objection about doing a tighter move, just that it was a lot of
work for unclear gains especially when it comes to the extra
backpatching noise.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Smith | 2025-12-04 01:08:37 | Re: Cleanup shadows variable warnings, round 1 |
| Previous Message | WangYu | 2025-12-04 00:52:16 | Re:Re: Extended Statistics set/restore/clear functions. |