Horton
Menu

Re: Cleanup shadows variable warnings, round 1

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: Chao Li <li.evan.chao@gmail.com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2025-12-04T00:56:07Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 11:11:04AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I don't know if we've agreed on a goal of getting rid of all shadowing, it's
> a lot of code churn. I agree shadowing is often confusing and error-prone,
> so maybe it's worth it.

(Providing my own context with more information on the matter, Peter
E. mentioning this commit upthread.)

As far as I know, the latest consensus with shadow variables was that
-Wshadow=compatible-local was OK for now, 0fe954c28584 mentioning that
we could consider a tighter -Wshadow=local later on.  I don't recall a
clear objection about doing a tighter move, just that it was a lot of
work for unclear gains especially when it comes to the extra
backpatching noise.
--
Michael

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Fix new-to-v19 -Wshadow warnings

  2. Reduce scope of for-loop-local variables to avoid shadowing

  3. Fix local-variable shadowing in pg_trgm's printSourceNFA().