On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 3:07 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 2:39 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > Masahiko Sawada writes:
> > > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 1:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> > >> Maybe there's some strange cross-distro difference here, but
> > >> what I'm wondering is if there
On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 2:39 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Masahiko Sawada writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 1:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Maybe there's some strange cross-distro difference here, but
> >> what I'm wondering is if there's a difference in CFLAGS.
> >> My build used
> >>
> >> CFLAGS = -Wal
Masahiko Sawada writes:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 1:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Maybe there's some strange cross-distro difference here, but
>> what I'm wondering is if there's a difference in CFLAGS.
>> My build used
>>
>> CFLAGS = -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith
>> -Wdeclaration-after-
On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 1:59 PM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Masahiko Sawada writes:
> > On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 11:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Interesting. I did not see such warnings with gcc 14.3.1, 15.1.1,
> >> nor older gcc versions. Must be something peculiar to 14.2.
>
> > Hmm, I got the same warni
Masahiko Sawada writes:
> On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 11:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>> Interesting. I did not see such warnings with gcc 14.3.1, 15.1.1,
>> nor older gcc versions. Must be something peculiar to 14.2.
> Hmm, I got the same warning with 14.3.1 (exact version shown below) so
> probably some
On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 11:34 AM Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Masahiko Sawada writes:
> > I got the following compiler warning:
>
> > % make -C src/backend/storage/large_object
> > inv_api.c: In function ‘inv_write’:
> > inv_api.c:565:29: warning: ‘workbuf’ may be used uninitialized
> > [-Wmaybe-uninitial
Masahiko Sawada writes:
> I got the following compiler warning:
> % make -C src/backend/storage/large_object
> inv_api.c: In function ‘inv_write’:
> inv_api.c:565:29: warning: ‘workbuf’ may be used uninitialized
> [-Wmaybe-uninitialized]
> 565 | char *workb = VARDATA(&workbuf.hdr
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 5, 2025 at 9:42 AM Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
> On 03.08.25 22:20, Tom Lane wrote:
> > It looks like the majority vote is still in favor of writing out
> > DatumGetPointer instead of using "_D()" functions, so let's roll
> > with that approach.
> >
> > I looked through our two vers
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I committed this with the required prerequisite patches. That concludes
> this thread, I think. I'll follow up on the remaining work in the
> "Datum as struct" thread, and the work in the "8 byte Datums" thread can
> also continue.
Thanks! The "8 byte Datums" work
On 03.08.25 22:20, Tom Lane wrote:
It looks like the majority vote is still in favor of writing out
DatumGetPointer instead of using "_D()" functions, so let's roll
with that approach.
I looked through our two versions of the varatt.h changes and
merged them. The attached is only cosmetically d
It looks like the majority vote is still in favor of writing out
DatumGetPointer instead of using "_D()" functions, so let's roll
with that approach.
I looked through our two versions of the varatt.h changes and
merged them. The attached is only cosmetically different from
yours, I think --- most
Michael Paquier writes:
> Another comment that can apply to all the patches presented on this
> thread. Could it be worth splitting these inline functions into a
> separate header that declares varatt.h, meaning that we'd need to
> think a bit more about the structures themselves and all the
> su
On Thu, Jul 31, 2025 at 10:06:02AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > I had this lying around as a draft patch, as part of my ongoing campaign
> > to convert many complicated macros to static inline functions. Since
> > the topic was mentioned in another thread [0], I cleaned
> On Jul 31, 2025, at 10:06 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>> I had this lying around as a draft patch, as part of my ongoing campaign
>> to convert many complicated macros to static inline functions. Since
>> the topic was mentioned in another thread [0], I cleaned up the
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> I had this lying around as a draft patch, as part of my ongoing campaign
> to convert many complicated macros to static inline functions. Since
> the topic was mentioned in another thread [0], I cleaned up the patch so
> that we can all look at it.
I had just finish
15 matches
Mail list logo
