Re: duplicate function declaration in multirangetypes_selfuncs.c

> On 23 Apr 2023, at 13:59, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 21, 2023 at 2:21 PM Pavel Borisov <pashkin.elfe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 15:14, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 21 Apr 2023, at 12:58, Anton Voloshin <a.voloshin@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21/04/2023 13:45, Pavel Borisov wrote:
>>>>> The patch is attached. Anyone to commit?
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of duplicates, I just found another one:
>>>>>                       break;
>>>>>                       break;
>>>> in src/interfaces/ecpg/preproc/variable.c
>>>> (in all stable branches).
>>>
>>> Indeed, coming in via 086cf1458 it's over a decade old.
>>>
>>>> Additional patch attached. Or both could go in the same commit, it's up to committer.
>>>
>>> I'll take care of these in a bit (unless someone finds more, or objects)
>>> backpatching them to their respective origins branches.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Daniel Gustafsson
>> Technically patches 0001 and 0002 in the thread above don't form
>> patchset i.e. 0002 will not apply over 0001. Fixed this in v2.
>> (They could be merged into one but as they fix completely unrelated
>> things, I think a better way to commit them separately.)
>
> I wonder if we should backpatch this.  On the one hand, this is not
> critical, and we may skip backpatching.  On the other hand,
> backpatching will evade unnecessary code differences between major
> versions and potentially simplify further backpatching.
>
> I would prefer backpathing.  Other opinions?

I had planned to backpatch these two fixes for just that reason, to avoid the risk for other backpatches not applying.

./daniel