From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: GCC 7 warnings
In-reply-to: <b79425b4-288b-19f7-2fb6-b65fc2a772bc@2ndquadrant.com>
References: <dd7e5c64-86ec-9e96-e682-a57d1cb9bcc2@2ndquadrant.com>
 <b79425b4-288b-19f7-2fb6-b65fc2a772bc@2ndquadrant.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>
	message dated "Wed, 03 May 2017 21:59:21 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <19104.1493871698.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2017 00:21:38 -0400
Message-ID: <19105.1493871698@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 4/10/17 11:03, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> The release of GCC 7 is approaching [0], and the number of warnings in
>> PostgreSQL has gone up since we last looked [1].  Output attached.  (My
>> version is 7.0.1 20170408.)

> GCC 7 has been released.

> Should we backpatch these warning fixes?  The commit in question is
> 6275f5d28a1577563f53f2171689d4f890a46881.  (I haven't actually checked
> whether backpatches well.)

Seems like that patch represents generally better coding practice,
and applying it would reduce cross-branch differences that would be
hazards for future patches, so I'm mostly +1 for this.

But I'd suggest waiting till after next week's releases.  If there
are any problems induced by this, we'd be more likely to find them
with another three months' time before it hits the wild.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers