Re: Portability concerns over pq_sendbyte?

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
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

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
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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.