On 2015-12-14 09:43:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > On 2015-12-14 10:55:05 +0000, Greg Stark wrote:
> >> Perhaps just adding some -Wno-* flags would make more sense than
> >> changing code and possibly introducing bugs.
>
> > I think that's a case-by-case decision. Just verbatimly backpatching
> > something that stewed in master for a year or two seems fine. That's imo
> > often preferrable because often it's just that existing warning
> > categories grew more "vigilant", or however you want to describe it. So
> > if you disable those, you also remove coverage...
>
> Meh. If we thought that anything like that was an actual bug, we should
> have back-patched the fix when removing the warning in HEAD. So I would
> expect that all remaining warnings are just compiler nannyism, and thus
> that fixing them is more likely to introduce bugs than do anything very
> useful.
I'm more concerned about removing warnings that help detect problems
when backpatching. Right now I need -Wno-incompatible-pointer-types \ -Wno-type-limits \ -Wno-unused-but-set-variable \
-Wno-empty-body\ -Wno-address
to compile 9.1 without warnings. -Wincompatible-pointer-types is quite
useful to detect problems. The rest indeed is pretty 'Meh'.