On 2015-12-14 09:43:07 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@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'. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
