On 11 April 2017 at 12:53, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

Any more thoughts on what is acceptable for fixing this? beta1 is
looming and it seems a bit messy to be shipping that with these
warnings, however harmless they are.

 David Rowley                   http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to