Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i4hJq-00050V-69 for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 08:04:10 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i4hJp-0005uX-2g for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 08:04:09 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1i4hJo-0005rk-PW for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 08:04:08 +0000 Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.19]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1i4hJm-00081G-Go for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 08:04:07 +0000 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4F9A510; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:04:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 02 Sep 2019 04:04:04 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=paquier.xyz; h= date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm2; bh=SHok2IvpaHwMF5NRO+0KTtMGRNn 8ynefSGc9MYOIxro=; b=Wh252m5WnBKsXsC6eqXdWP1NLXN5ZqFRVseA6b7ucq7 T8KuEW1lTbSxrrCKheReJdTqFSMOldBVNjWa9poKzNu5JhP/iWUimVdWD4x9G/xH 6LKTS7gGFcBKf6rqG2V7iirjhGnhcLKsbwUk3S5WhL28bpxrTkJDHENBn33VTgbz G8wEvrcuxZ1Zk+D2zG7v3Hgr2Yp3xlWeQJWCm8D/sJeq7sDaqeIohX2PVZTbBeDI W8X5H8g3aS6Mz9f1cCRrsQdaYplo4mCPoOM3AF9KCLbOK/AjsB24jA+LbCoFWObk jYWnD4Yj9QTBV5T+S1oK+UR0Wkh/+ekR6F/p/ZfcVjQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=SHok2I vpaHwMF5NRO+0KTtMGRNn8ynefSGc9MYOIxro=; b=awBvsst4r8lVOkp6sxsPAF 2Y8vKdoO9Cny8Tci6UBQdgyCHVyJmCtOSAsNVXqrghV1LrkCSiDs17EhM9rNg9fd +xT2ILl09+cjMePddACBNSAEbnVE4SQ0qW/3rNOGxFT7qaV8lrjhZHvyQ/gJS+5D Ma0l/WRNgAZ0ktH/QymvqT0cGwgzC2qtPWMZihqlmcgZODAZWqof3nChQIMV/r6d 2Ix8jWl+qZUUY9QZ3BobfNHmEvVkgVrUu63P4MU/Eci2NlkC3DqjQdsvrKqMa+q4 0/ME/74kiZ2sN4SMx6fmGyYIb/wxmkW4KVXQRIuI8ysClQv7O4B9Wo+BI4pwxQ1A == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudeiledguddviecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enfghrlhcuvffnffculdejtddmnecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehgtderredt tddvnecuhfhrohhmpefoihgthhgrvghlucfrrghquhhivghruceomhhitghhrggvlhesph grqhhuihgvrhdrgiihiieqnecukfhppeduuddurddutddvrddukedtrddukeehnecurfgr rhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmihgthhgrvghlsehprghquhhivghrrdighiiinecuve hluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-ME-Proxy: Received: from paquier.xyz (ee0822lan1.rev.em-net.ne.jp [111.102.180.185]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 75511D60062; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 04:03:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 17:03:26 +0900 From: Michael Paquier To: Peter Eisentraut Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix compiler warning Message-ID: <20190902080326.GB25912@paquier.xyz> References: <20190902010409.GC1841@paquier.xyz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk --tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Mon, Sep 02, 2019 at 07:54:16AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Is this code new in PG12? Doesn't look like it to me. Well, 12 has not been released yet, which is the point I am trying to make. The code was introduced in 10, and as the fix is trivial it seems to me that it could be back-patched. For example even recently you back-patched f02bd63 in the same category. If you don't think that's worth it, that's fine for me as well. -- Michael --tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEG72nH6vTowiyblFKnvQgOdbyQH0FAl1szM4ACgkQnvQgOdby QH1koBAApB8fmNFVvkiOPWjQSaz/G9WGRRi73dqvZE5LuUNAuL90P+CdvBY33y6c mq3ASZwHnXROVvy1p9v45IDQUcelyEHTxk6lBrmRP8JTy0fJ1UM0oSqvYwMPiYAa ZIU6yLmfK4EgjTu86ZUezj1DZyhCw8kGm4uwHWexFLGW4wz80HZyMCN7+5Y/oYju mrvZFgg/Z7SYDgUJF8UZ7gwje8OD9Z8mlDh2BlnOx+phhTtidS2hBL+6DIMeGiHG yCzcXDU14ExeKkLqnPC+aS4aH2KOS/RzWsemZkkoqOXogp/oSfYct4Irn1BvOpvp br2WS1k6CJxA1UeeieWf1kzKXouZB7+tZnasweJsJCztSNU42DKzw73L1atfQC4Z mqL26LYs1b0eCDwy28xCVTGLcYwtXShJcG12atoep0UKXGXVWl8R/ieTTiiPuRsg N9+9Ugi0lQ+AQNSGSKuJ/oyr/sa3E64UnPUfzDVKR4NFRxJjTTkn3oGLvBmtN+U5 H3BUKfQU0FKaGTQc5NL5sQ1V2avUuRUTq0oijjLRQMmJWMgIxA7CUwSbVkoNjTym 38At+80Uz9impmJbYsmWdjMDxmD+RuE43iGVACAteJtzy6dbit/2m9C7vVwRtKto OqaZ+kLg0MweztkNDjCj/pFLrt69k44HyEtPJEzCkO0Kf6Sp2wA= =PlDx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tjCHc7DPkfUGtrlw--