| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: refactoring - share str2*int64 functions |
| Date: | 2019-08-27 04:05:35 |
| Message-ID: | 20190827040535.GC7422@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Fabien COELHO wrote:
> I have started to do something, and I can spend some time on that this week,
> but I'm pretty unclear about what exactly should be done.
Thanks.
> The error returning stuff is simple enough, but I'm unclear about what to do
> with pg_uint64, which has a totally different signature. Should it be
> aligned?
I am not sure what you mean with aligned here. If you mean
consistent, getting into a state where we have all functions for all
three sizes, signed and unsigned, would be nice.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-08-27 04:29:27 | Re: old_snapshot_threshold vs indexes |
| Previous Message | Alex | 2019-08-27 02:59:44 | Re: understand the pg locks in in an simple case |