On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > On 04/04/2017 10:02 AM, Joe Conway wrote: >> On 04/04/2017 09:55 AM, Mike Palmiotto wrote: >>> After some discussion off-list, I've rebased and udpated the patches. >>> Please see attached for further review. >> >> Thanks -- will have another look and test on a machine with selinux >> setup. Robert, did you want me to take responsibility to commit on this >> or just provide review/feedback? > > I did some editorializing on these. > > In particular I did not like the approach to fixing "warning: ‘tclass’ > may be used uninitialized" and ended up just doing it the same as was > done elsewhere in relation.c already (set tclass = 0 in the variable > declaration). Along the way I also changed one instance of tclass from > uint16 to uint16_t for the sake of consistency. > > Interestingly we figured out that the warning was present with -Og, but > not present with -O0, -O2, or -O3. > > If you want to test, apply 0001a and 0001b before 0002. > > Any objections?
I'm guessing Tom's going to have a strong feeling about whether 0001a is the right way to address the stdbool issue, but I don't personally know what the right thing to do is so I will avoid opining on that topic. So, nope, no objections here to you committing those. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
