Re: alternative to PG_CATCH - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: alternative to PG_CATCH
Date
Msg-id fc203f54-b56a-da1e-549d-2ab6621bdb1d@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: alternative to PG_CATCH  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: alternative to PG_CATCH  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2019-11-02 15:36, Tom Lane wrote:
> I hadn't actually tested this patch before commit, but now that
> it's in, I'm seeing assorted compiler warnings:

I've fixed the ones that I could reproduce on CentOS 6.  I haven't seen 
any on a variety of newer systems.

It's not clear why only a handful of cases cause warnings, but my guess 
is that the functions are above some size/complexity threshold beyond 
which those older compilers give up doing a full analysis.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: vignesh C
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of largein-progress transactions
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: cost based vacuum (parallel)