| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Yury Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
| Subject: | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |
| Date: | 2016-02-11 18:39:29 |
| Message-ID: | 20160211183929.g7hyjncswhlij6q6@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-02-11 13:37:17 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > And anyway, these macros are a potential issue even without stdbool.h
> > style booleans.
>
> Absolutely; they don't work safely for testing bits that aren't in the
> rightmost byte of a flag word, for instance. I'm on board with making
> these fixes, I'm just unconvinced that stdbool is a good reason for it.
Oh, ok. Interactions with stdbool was what made me looking into this,
that's primarily why I mentioned it. What's your thinking about
back-patching, independent of that then?
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-11 18:41:20 | Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-02-11 18:37:17 | Re: GinPageIs* don't actually return a boolean |