Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

From: Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use
Date: 2017-12-30 13:08:22
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 08:29:09AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:33:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It does make sense, probably, to push 0001-0003 first and see if
>> anything turns up from that, then 0004.
> I have not looked at 0001 in details yet, which was going to be my next
> step. If you could wait for at least two days that would be nice to give
> me some room.

So, looking at 0001 now... Shouldn't there be a DatumGetBool8(), with
the existing DatumGetBool() which should depend on the size of bool? I
can see that all the catalogs are correctly updated with bool8 in the

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2017-12-30 13:51:26 Re: pgsql: Add parallel-aware hash joins.
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2017-12-30 12:25:56 Re: [HACKERS] Commits don't block for synchronous replication