> On Nov 26, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Mark Dilger <hornschnorter@gmail.com> writes:
>> bool nulls[Natts_pg_replication_origin];
>> memset(&nulls, 0, sizeof(nulls));
>
>> around lines 277 through 303. Patch below.
>
> AFAIK this is not a bug, though I agree that dropping the "&" is probably
> better style. The reason is that applying "&" to an undecorated array
> name is basically a no-op, because without "&" the array name would decay
> to a pointer anyway. With "&", the address-taking is explicit, but you
> still get a pointer to the array, not a pointer to some pointer to the
> array. Ain't C fun?
Thanks for the refresher on C madness.
mark
