On 5/4/17 00:21, Tom Lane wrote:
> But I'd suggest waiting till after next week's releases. If there
> are any problems induced by this, we'd be more likely to find them
> with another three months' time before it hits the wild.
done
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 4/10/17 11:03, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> The release of GCC 7 is approaching [0], and the number of warnings in
>> PostgreSQL has gone up since we last looked [1]. Output attached. (My
>> version is 7.0.1 20170408.)
> GCC 7 has
On 4/10/17 11:03, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The release of GCC 7 is approaching [0], and the number of warnings in
> PostgreSQL has gone up since we last looked [1]. Output attached. (My
> version is 7.0.1 20170408.)
GCC 7 has been released.
Should we backpatch these warning fixes? The commit
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> On 4/12/17 00:12, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Now a human can see that saved_timeval.tv_usec must be 0..99, so
>> that the %d format item must always emit exactly 3 characters, which
>> means that really 5 bytes would be enough. I wouldn't
On 4/12/17 00:12, Tom Lane wrote:
> The change in setup_formatted_log_time seems a bit weird:
>
> - charmsbuf[8];
> + charmsbuf[10];
>
> The associated call is
>
> sprintf(msbuf, ".%03d", (int) (saved_timeval.tv_usec / 1000));
>
> Now a human can see that
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Attached is a more refined patch that I propose for PG10 now. Compared
> to the previous rushed version, this one uses some more precise
> arithmetic to size some of the buffers.
Generally +1 for switching the snprintf calls to use
On 4/11/17 13:57, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut writes:
>
>>> d) Replace most of the problematic code with psprintf() and dynamically
>>> sized buffers.
>>
>> +1 for (c) as you have it. Later we might think about selectively
>>
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut writes:
> > d) Replace most of the problematic code with psprintf() and dynamically
> > sized buffers.
>
> +1 for (c) as you have it. Later we might think about selectively
> doing (d), but it seems like more work for
Peter Eisentraut writes:
> Possible fixes:
> a) Ignore, hoping GCC will change before final release. (unlikely at
> this point)
> b) Add compiler option to disable this particular warning, worry about
> it later. (Might be an option for backpatching.)
> c)
On 2017-04-10 09:10:07 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 2017-04-10 11:03:23 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > The release of GCC 7 is approaching [0], and the number of warnings in
> > PostgreSQL has gone up since we last looked [1]. Output attached. (My
> > version is 7.0.1 20170408.)
Hi,
On 2017-04-10 11:03:23 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> The release of GCC 7 is approaching [0], and the number of warnings in
> PostgreSQL has gone up since we last looked [1]. Output attached. (My
> version is 7.0.1 20170408.)
>
> Most of the issues have to do with concatenating two or
Hi Peter,
> c) Expand the target buffer sizes until the warning goes away. (Sample
> patch attached.)
I personally think it's a great patch. Unfortunately I don't have GCC
7.0 right now but at least it doesn't break anything on 6.3.1. Since
there is no rush I would suggest to add an entry to
12 matches
Mail list logo