Re: Use T_IntList for uint32

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Use T_IntList for uint32
Date: 2020-09-01 03:23:33
Message-ID: CAA4eK1JjDPA+=eKVUL4yZXkqKdqRzhb+ScjJXs4HQSQL0jcsZg@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 5:44 PM Ashutosh Bapat
<ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 4:59 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> > Now, as far as I can see there is no problem in using T_IntList in
> > such usage because we are not going to fetch stored unsigned value as
> > a signed value, so the comparison in get_schema_sent_in_streamed_txn
> > should work well. However, still, I thought it would be better if
> > there is a built-in T_UIntList.
> >
> > Thoughts?
>
> May be we should have separate list APIs for XID like OID, in case we
> change underlying datatype of XID in future (unlikely but we have had
> discussion about 64bit XIDs in the past). Apart from that it helps us
> track code which deals with XID lists.
>

This is a valid point but I think for now I will go with Tom's
suggestion as the demand for this seems low at this stage. I don't
want to introduce a new set of APIs just for one use case especially
when we can work with existing APIs.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2020-09-01 03:58:34 Re: PATCH: logical_work_mem and logical streaming of large in-progress transactions
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2020-09-01 03:21:28 Re: Use T_IntList for uint32