| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Portability concerns over pq_sendbyte? |
| Date: | 2018-06-06 16:27:58 |
| Message-ID: | 20180606162758.s57ca7twwz2fi72e@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-May-24, Andrew Gierth wrote:
> In PG11, pq_sendbyte got changed from taking an int parameter to taking
> an int8.
> Would it be better for these to take unsigned values, or have unsigned
> variants?
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.)
Andres, you own this open item, unless one of the other committers who
have participated in this thread would like to take it as their own.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Konstantin Knizhnik | 2018-06-06 16:33:41 | Re: libpq compression |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-06-06 16:22:41 | Re: Possible bug in logical replication. |