Hi,
On Wed, Dec 03, 2025 at 10:15:41AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com> writes:
> > I noticed the only changes here are for `static` definitions. Are we
> > just more careful with normal functions, or does the compiler complain
> > more easily about such "incomplete" definitions when they're in
> > headers or need to be linked against?
>
> Some years ago we had a buildfarm animal that would complain about
> this construct, so the tree used to be clean. Probably it's just
> chance that these have only snuck into local functions.
Thank you both for looking at it!
The buildfarm animal remark makes me think to check with -Wstrict-prototypes
and -Wold-style-definition. I just did that and found two more (added in v2
attached) that the coccinelle script missed...
Those new two (run_apply_worker() and usage()) are also static, so that's just
chance.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
