On 2020-Aug-14, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2020 at 08:47:28PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Should we back-patch that? Usually I figure that people might want
> > to build back PG branches on newer platforms at some point, so that
> > it's useful to apply portability fixes across-the-board. On the
> > other hand, since it's only a compiler warning, maybe it's not worth
> > the trouble.
>
> Not sure that's worth the trouble as long as people don't complain
> about it directly, and it does not prevent the contrib module to
> work.
FWIW I just had a CI job fail the "warnings" test because of lacking
this patch in the back branches :-) What do you think about
back-patching this to at least 11? I would say 10, but since that one
is going to end soon, it might not be worth much effort. OTOH maybe we
want to backpatch all the way back to 9.2 given the no-warnings policy
we recently acquired.
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"I must say, I am absolutely impressed with what pgsql's implementation of
VALUES allows me to do. It's kind of ridiculous how much "work" goes away in
my code. Too bad I can't do this at work (Oracle 8/9)." (Tom Allison)
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-06/msg00016.php