MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CA+hUKGKpHPDTv67Y+s6yiC8KH5OXeDg6a-twWo_xznKTcG0kSA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1725174.1651449765@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3953550.1663376882@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <208054.1663534665@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <208054.1663534665@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 14:11:40 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CA+TgmobHtLabD4+AKgFzR=Qp+4dhv9uX2Ob_HSA9kbCr78dCgQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tree-walker callbacks vs -Wdeprecated-non-prototype
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>,
 pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmobHtLabD4%2BAKgFzR%3DQp%2B4dhv9uX2Ob_HSA9kbCr78dCgQ%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 4:58 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> BTW, I was distressed to discover that someone decided they could
> use ExecShutdownNode as a planstate_tree_walker() walker even though
> its argument list is not even the right length.  I'm a bit flabbergasted
> that we seem to have gotten away with that so far, because I'd have
> thought for sure that it'd break some platform's convention for which
> argument gets passed where.  I think we need to fix that, independently
> of what we do about the larger scope of these problems.  To avoid an
> API break, I propose making ExecShutdownNode just be a one-liner that
> calls an internal ExecShutdownNode_walker() function.  (I've not done
> it that way in the attached, though.)

I think this was brain fade on my part ... or possibly on Amit
Kapila's part, but I believe it was probably me. I agree that it's
impressive that it actually seemed to work that way.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com