| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: subxcnt defined as signed integer in SnapshotData and SerializeSnapshotData |
| Date: | 2015-05-13 15:02:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYk5vam7bCzYh+H278apaOHZkvY72=tkhFSv=Gj4Lko5Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 8 May 2015 at 13:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> I think that we should redefine subxcnt as uint32 for consistency with
>>> xcnt, and remove the two assertions that 924bcf4 has introduced. I
>>> could get a patch quickly done FWIW.
>>
>> (uint32) +1
>
> Attached is the patch. This has finished by being far simpler than
> what I thought first.
I'm just going to remove the useless assertion for now. What you're
proposing here may (or may not) be worth doing, but it carries a
non-zero risk of breaking something somewhere, if anyone is relying on
the signed-ness of that type. Removing the assertion is definitely
safe.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-05-13 15:09:50 | Re: a few thoughts on the schedule |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2015-05-13 14:32:03 | a few thoughts on the schedule |