Re: Cleanup shadows variable warnings, round 1

From: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Cleanup shadows variable warnings, round 1
Date: 2026-04-21 13:51:10
Message-ID: aeeADDomU6yAjCOb@alvherre.pgsql
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2026-Apr-21, David Rowley wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 at 19:02, Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > PFA v8 - rebased and fixed a few new occurrences.
>
> Which of these are new to v19? Can you separate those ones out? IMO,
> we should commit at least those, as those won't cause any backpatching
> pain.

I agree. The others are v20 material.

Specifically about 0003 (v20 material for sure, as this is ancient
code), I don't like this patch very much. I wonder if it would be
possible to do away with the idea of using these codeFragment things
without introducing a performance issue here. Is that doable by turning
these macros into static functions?

--
Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"Puedes vivir sólo una vez, pero si lo haces bien, una vez es suficiente"

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message SCHOEMANS Maxime 2026-04-21 13:54:33 Re: Implement missing join selectivity estimation for range types
Previous Message Alexander Korotkov 2026-04-21 13:49:12 Re: Two issues leading to discrepancies in FSM data on the standby server