On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 2:09 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> ilm...@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes: >>> Why bother with the 'rte' variable at all if it's only used for the >>> Assert()ing the rtekind? >> >> That was proposed a few messages back. I don't like it because it makes >> these functions look different from the other scan-cost-estimation >> functions, and we'd just have to undo the "optimization" if they ever >> grow a need to reference the rte for another purpose. > > I think that's sort of silly, though. It's a trivial difference, > neither likely to confuse anyone nor difficult to undo.
+1. I would just do that and call it a day. There is no point to do a mandatory list lookup as that's just for an assertion, and fixing this warning does not seem worth the addition of fancier facilities. If the function declarations were doubly-nested in the code, I would personally consider the use of a variable, but not here. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers