On 11 April 2017 at 12:53, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >>> ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes: >>>> Why bother with the 'rte' variable at all if it's only used for the >>>> Assert()ing the rtekind? >>> >>> That was proposed a few messages back. I don't like it because it makes >>> these functions look different from the other scan-cost-estimation >>> functions, and we'd just have to undo the "optimization" if they ever >>> grow a need to reference the rte for another purpose. >> >> I think that's sort of silly, though. It's a trivial difference, >> neither likely to confuse anyone nor difficult to undo. > > +1. I would just do that and call it a day. There is no point to do a > mandatory list lookup as that's just for an assertion, and fixing this > warning does not seem worth the addition of fancier facilities. If the > function declarations were doubly-nested in the code, I would > personally consider the use of a variable, but not here.
Any more thoughts on what is acceptable for fixing this? beta1 is looming and it seems a bit messy to be shipping that with these warnings, however harmless they are. -- David Rowley http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
