Re: pgsql: pageinspect: Try to fix some bugs in previous commit.

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I just made the C code agree with what the SQL declarations for the
>> functions say.

> Doesn't look like it to me. You changed a bunch of places that say
> UInt32GetDatum to UInt64GetDatum, but the SQL type certainly isn't
> unsigned.

The machines don't care about that. They do care about the width of
the datum. Particularly on 32-bit hardware, where one width is
pass-by-val and the other isn't. (Also, if your point is that you
wish we had a uint64 SQL type, I doubt we're going there.)

What needs to be resolved to decide if any of this is actually sane is to
figure out which of these values need to be int64 on the SQL side because
(a) they could practically exceed the range of signed int32 and (b) it
would bother us to show such values as negative rather than large
positive. I suspect that not all the things currently declared as int64
really need to be. I also remain unhappy that we can't manage to be
consistent about what a BlockNumber parameter is represented as.

regards, tom lane