Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option
| От | Andres Freund |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 20200408004902.u6zfzlnhj77gxmgt@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2020-04-07 16:36:54 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Pushed, with some additional changes.
This triggers a new warning for me (gcc-10):
/home/andres/src/postgresql/src/backend/executor/nodeLimit.c: In function ‘ExecLimit’:
/home/andres/src/postgresql/src/backend/executor/nodeLimit.c:136:7: warning: this statement may fall through
[-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
136 | if (ScanDirectionIsForward(direction))
| ^
/home/andres/src/postgresql/src/backend/executor/nodeLimit.c:216:3: note: here
216 | case LIMIT_WINDOWEND_TIES:
| ^~~~
I've not looked at it in any sort of detail, but it looks like it might
be a false positive, with the "fall-through" comment not being
sufficient to quiesce the compiler?
Cosmetically I would agree that falling through to the next case" a few
blocks deep inside a case: isn't the prettiest...
- Andres
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: