Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> writes:
> On 01/02/2017 11:09 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The bison issue is discussed in
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/E1WpjkB-0003zA-N4%40gemulon.postgresql.org
> Ah, thanks. I vaguely remember that thread now.
> Looks like there was some consensus for applying Peter's patch with the
> addition of a comment, but apparently that never happened. Would we
> still consider that for 9.2 and 9.3 branches?
Sure it did, see 55fb759ab3e7543a6be72a35e6b6961455c5b393.
That's why you don't see the complaints in 9.4 and up.
I'm not sure why Peter didn't back-patch it, but doing so now seems
safe enough.
> Any thoughts on fixing the other warnings?
I'm okay with small, low-risk patches to silence warnings in back
branches. Like Robert, I'd be concerned about anything invasive.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
