Re: [HACKERS] Getting rid of LSEG.m

2015-02-03 Thread Heikki Linnakangas
On 02/03/2015 06:47 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Or perhaps we should just remove both the field and the ifdef'd assignments. That's a bit more drastic but I can't really see this code ever coming back to life ... especially since the notion of a field that's not stored on disk but is valid in in-memory

[HACKERS] Getting rid of LSEG.m

2015-02-03 Thread Tom Lane
I noticed a Coverity complaint about the "m" field of LSEG being uninitialized, which indeed it is because all the places that would set it are ifdef'd out. So why didn't the field itself get ifdef'd out as well? Or perhaps we should just remove both the field and the ifdef'd assignments. That's