Kris Jurka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 24 Apr 2006, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>> Perhaps someone could check if changing the test explicitly check
>> against NULL:
>>
>> ((attnum) > (int) (tup)->t_data->t_natts) ? \
>> ( \
>> (((isnull) != NULL)? (*(isnull) = true) : (dummyret)NULL), \
>> (Datum)NULL \
>>
>> removes the warning. It seems silly for the GCC people to add warnings
>> for this kind of stuff without a simple way to bypass it...
> Yes, this coding removes the warning.
Oh, good, that seems like a reasonable change to make (it's arguably
more clear than the original anyway).
Is this the only place where the warning shows up? ISTM there's quite
a lot of code that uses "if (ptr)" for a NULL-ness check.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
