Thread
Commits
-
Remove unused 'cur_skey' argument from IndexScanOK()
- 1153422edac5 18.0 landed
-
Useless parameter 'cur_skey' in IndexScanOK
Hugo Zhang <hugo.zhang@openpie.com> — 2024-07-03T02:48:37Z
Hi, The 'cur_skey' parameter in `IndexScanOK` funciton doesn't seem to be useful. The function does not use cur_skey for any operation. Is there any other consideration for retaining the cur_skey parameter here? Best wishes Hugo zhang
-
Re: Useless parameter 'cur_skey' in IndexScanOK
Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com> — 2024-07-03T13:41:21Z
Hi, > The 'cur_skey' parameter in `IndexScanOK` funciton doesn't seem to be useful. Good catch. As I understand it is not used for anything since a78fcfb51243 (dated 2006) and this is a static function, so we shouldn't worry about third-party extensions. I wonder why none of the compilers complained about this. Here is the patch. -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
-
Re: Useless parameter 'cur_skey' in IndexScanOK
Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se> — 2024-07-03T13:46:56Z
> On 3 Jul 2024, at 15:41, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com> wrote: >> The 'cur_skey' parameter in `IndexScanOK` funciton doesn't seem to be useful. > Good catch. As I understand it is not used for anything since > a78fcfb51243 (dated 2006) and this is a static function, so we > shouldn't worry about third-party extensions. Agreed, it seems reasonable to clean this up. > I wonder why none of the compilers complained about this. Not to mention static analyzers. -- Daniel Gustafsson
-
Re: Useless parameter 'cur_skey' in IndexScanOK
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> — 2024-08-16T10:28:57Z
On 03/07/2024 16:46, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >> On 3 Jul 2024, at 15:41, Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@timescale.com> wrote: >>> The 'cur_skey' parameter in `IndexScanOK` funciton doesn't seem to be useful. > >> Good catch. As I understand it is not used for anything since >> a78fcfb51243 (dated 2006) and this is a static function, so we >> shouldn't worry about third-party extensions. > > Agreed, it seems reasonable to clean this up. > >> I wonder why none of the compilers complained about this. > > Not to mention static analyzers. Committed, thanks. -- Heikki Linnakangas Neon (https://neon.tech)