Feedback-ID: ie3de48e3:Fastmail
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 15:51:10 +0200
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>,
	Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>,
	Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Cleanup shadows variable warnings, round 1
Message-ID: <aeeADDomU6yAjCOb@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAApHDvp=rx5GxM=yW8QhFF3noXtYt7LkOxJ7zkaPOzpti4Gm8w@mail.gmail.com>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aeeADDomU6yAjCOb%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2026-Apr-21, David Rowley wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Apr 2026 at 19:02, Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.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"