Nathan Bossart <nathandboss...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 01:06:21PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: >> It looks like >> AtEOXact_GUC asserts nestLevel > 0, so that either 0 or -1 would >> do as an "invalid" value; I'd lean a bit to using 0.
> I only chose -1 to follow a117ceb's example in amcheck. I have no > preference. Hmm, if we're following amcheck's example it should be more like this: diff --git a/src/backend/access/brin/brin.c b/src/backend/access/brin/brin.c index 52f171772d..0de1441dc6 100644 --- a/src/backend/access/brin/brin.c +++ b/src/backend/access/brin/brin.c @@ -1051,7 +1051,13 @@ brin_summarize_range(PG_FUNCTION_ARGS) save_nestlevel = NewGUCNestLevel(); } else + { heapRel = NULL; + /* Set these just to suppress "uninitialized variable" warnings */ + save_userid = InvalidOid; + save_sec_context = -1; + save_nestlevel = -1; + } indexRel = index_open(indexoid, ShareUpdateExclusiveLock); I like this better anyway since the fact that the other two variables aren't warned about seems like an implementation artifact. regards, tom lane