On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 1:25 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > On 01/07/2014 05:20 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> >> David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> I think it will be like Andres said up thread, to stop multiple >>> evaluations >>> of the expression passed to the macro. >> >> >> Exactly. We are not going to risk multiple evals in a macro as commonly >> used as elog/ereport; the risk/benefit ratio is just too high. >> >> I don't see anything wrong with suppressing this warning by inserting >> an additional return statement. The code is already plastered with such >> things, from the days before we had any unreachability hints in >> elog/ereport. And as I said upthread, there is no good reason to suppose >> that the unreachability hints are always recognized by every compiler. >> I take this behavior of MSVC as proof of that statement. > > > Yeah, I was just surprised because I thought MSVC understood it. Committed > the additional return statement.
Thanks for committing both the patches for cleanup. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
