Re: FETCH FIRST clause WITH TIES option
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Surafel Temesgen <surafel3000@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>
Date: 2020-04-08T00:51:52Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hello On 2020-Apr-07, Andres Freund wrote: > 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? It's on purpose, yeah, but I can understand the compiler not getting it. > Cosmetically I would agree that falling through to the next case" a few > blocks deep inside a case: isn't the prettiest... That's true ... maybe a fix would be to split that stuff to a subroutine? Thanks -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Commits
-
Support FETCH FIRST WITH TIES
- 357889eb17bb 13.0 landed