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 1hbo8F-0007WT-45 for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:28:47 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hbo8D-0002Wc-Bt for pgsql-committers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:28:45 +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 1hbo8D-0002WF-26 for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:28:45 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hbo86-0004op-PM for pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 15:28:43 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x5EFSaCs028312; Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:28:37 -0400 From: Tom Lane To: Alvaro Herrera cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org, Etsuro Fujita Subject: Re: pgsql: Avoid spurious deadlocks when upgrading a tuple lock In-reply-to: <20190614151109.GA12229@alvherre.pgsql> References: <20190614151109.GA12229@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:11:09 -0400" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <28310.1560526116.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:28:36 -0400 Message-ID: <28311.1560526116@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Alvaro Herrera writes: > On 2019-Jun-14, Tom Lane wrote: >> I'm now getting >> heapam.c: In function 'heap_lock_tuple': >> heapam.c:4041: warning: 'skip_tuple_lock' may be used uninitialized in = this function > Hm, I don't get that warning. Does this patch silence it, please? Uh, no patch attached? But initializing the variable where it's declared would certainly silence it. regards, tom lane