| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Portability concerns over pq_sendbyte? |
| Date: | 2018-06-11 05:25:44 |
| Message-ID: | 20180611052544.GC31877@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:27:58PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Do you have an answer to this question? Does anybody else?
>
> (My guts tell me it'd be better to change these routines to take
> unsigned values, without creating extra variants. But guts frequently
> misspeak.)
My guts are telling me as well to not have more variants. On top of
that it seems to me that we'd want to rename any new routines to include
"uint" in their name instead of "int", and for compatibility with past
code pq_sendint should not be touched.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2018-06-11 06:28:23 | Re: SHOW ALL does not honor pg_read_all_settings membership |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2018-06-11 04:55:41 | Re: Concurrency bug in UPDATE of partition-key |