On Monday, February 19, 2024 11:39 AM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 7:40 PM Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> > wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 16, 2024 6:41 PM shveta malik <shveta.ma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Thanks for the patch. Here are few comments: > > Thanks for the comments. > > > > > 2. > > > > +static bool > > +validate_remote_info(WalReceiverConn *wrconn, int elevel) > > ... > > + > > + return (!remote_in_recovery && primary_slot_valid); > > > > The primary_slot_valid could be uninitialized in this function. > > return (!remote_in_recovery && primary_slot_valid); > > Here if remote_in_recovery is true, it will not even read primary_slot_valid. > It > will read primary_slot_valid only if remote_in_recovery is false and in such a > case primary_slot_valid will always be initialized in the else block above, > let me > know if you still feel we shall initialize this to some default?
I understand that it will not be used, but some complier could report WARNING for the un-initialized variable. The cfbot[1] seems complain about this as well. [1] https://cirrus-ci.com/task/5416851522453504 Best Regards, Hou zj
