Useless parameter 'cur_skey' in IndexScanOK
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
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
Attachments:
v1-0001-IndexScanOK-remove-unused-parameter-cur_skey.patchapplication/x-patch; name=v1-0001-IndexScanOK-remove-unused-parameter-cur_skey.patchDownload+3-4
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
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)