> On Nov 26, 2017, at 10:28 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Mark Dilger <hornschnor...@gmail.com> writes: >> bool nulls[Natts_pg_replication_origin]; >> memset(&nulls, 0, sizeof(nulls)); > >> around lines 277 through 303. Patch below. > > AFAIK this is not a bug, though I agree that dropping the "&" is probably > better style. The reason is that applying "&" to an undecorated array > name is basically a no-op, because without "&" the array name would decay > to a pointer anyway. With "&", the address-taking is explicit, but you > still get a pointer to the array, not a pointer to some pointer to the > array. Ain't C fun?
Thanks for the refresher on C madness. mark
