Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32
Date: 2020-09-21 18:22:26
Message-ID: 991317.1600712546@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> Typically, the DatumGetBlah() function that you pick should match the
> SQL data type that the function is returning. So if the function
> returns pg_catalog.int4, which corresponds to the C data type int32,
> you would use DatumGetInt32. There is no SQL type corresponding to the
> C data type uint32, so I'm not sure why we even have DatumGetUInt32.

xid?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2020-09-21 18:55:37 Re: pgindent vs dtrace on macos
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-09-21 18:21:43 Re: recovering from "found xmin ... from before relfrozenxid ..."