Re: Tree-walker callbacks vs -Wdeprecated-non-prototype
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Tree-walker callbacks vs -Wdeprecated-non-prototype |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobHtLabD4+AKgFzR=Qp+4dhv9uX2Ob_HSA9kbCr78dCgQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Tree-walker callbacks vs -Wdeprecated-non-prototype (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 4:58 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > BTW, I was distressed to discover that someone decided they could > use ExecShutdownNode as a planstate_tree_walker() walker even though > its argument list is not even the right length. I'm a bit flabbergasted > that we seem to have gotten away with that so far, because I'd have > thought for sure that it'd break some platform's convention for which > argument gets passed where. I think we need to fix that, independently > of what we do about the larger scope of these problems. To avoid an > API break, I propose making ExecShutdownNode just be a one-liner that > calls an internal ExecShutdownNode_walker() function. (I've not done > it that way in the attached, though.) I think this was brain fade on my part ... or possibly on Amit Kapila's part, but I believe it was probably me. I agree that it's impressive that it actually seemed to work that way. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: