On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 12:23 AM Michael Paquier wrote:
> Okay, done so only in the function, then.
Thanks! I'll keep thinking about the assert-vs-error, but there are a
pile of TODOs that are in line first.
--Jacob
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 08:30:19AM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 8:28 AM Andres Freund wrote:
>> I think we shouldn't add the attribute to the declaration, just to the
>> function. The caller doesn't need to know that it's unused, it's purely a
>> question of the specific
Hi,
On 2025-08-13 12:54:27 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I think the PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY fix is preferable for backport,
> > so I don't want to get in the way of that approach.
>
> The attached has been working for me. Thoughts?
I think we shouldn't add the attribute to the declaration
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 8:28 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> I think we shouldn't add the attribute to the declaration, just to the
> function. The caller doesn't need to know that it's unused, it's purely a
> question of the specific implementation that the attribute is unused.
+1
--Jacob
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 01:44:32PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> I don't think I understand what you mean by this? I don't want to get
> rid of the check, but I was wondering if we could strengthen the
> behavior on HEAD to raise an ERROR regardless of whether assertions
> are enabled or not. Simi
On Tue, Aug 12, 2025 at 7:31 AM Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2025-08-11 16:30:30 -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> > WFM. Do you have any opinions on our use of maxsize in general?
>
> It's somewhat odd.
Okay, glad it's not just me :D
--Jacob
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 7:34 PM Michael Paquier wrote:
> And the rest was looking OK, so appending a
> PG_USED_FOR_ASSERTS_ONLY in the declaration seems OK from here.
If we're the first to use the attribute this way, I think I'd prefer
to put it on the definition only.
> I'd rather keep the sani
Hi,
On 2025-08-11 16:30:30 -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 3:52 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> > And the warning is right. Not sure why a new compiler is needed, IIRC this
> > warning is present in other cases with older compilers too.
>
> Probably
> https://github.com/gcc-
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 04:30:30PM -0700, Jacob Champion wrote:
> Probably
> https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/0eac9cfee
> which was committed last month.
>
> Andy Fan reported this as well [1] but I did not see it at the time.
> :( Sorry, Andy, my email had changed.
Warning remains un
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 3:52 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> And the warning is right. Not sure why a new compiler is needed, IIRC this
> warning is present in other cases with older compilers too.
Probably
https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/commit/0eac9cfee
which was committed last month.
Andy Fan
Hi,
When building without assertions with a rather recent gcc (trunk built in the
last weeks), I get this warning:
../../../../../home/andres/src/postgresql/src/backend/utils/init/miscinit.c: In
function 'SerializeClientConnectionInfo':
../../../../../home/andres/src/postgresql/src/backend/utils
11 matches
Mail list logo
