Re: [PATCH] Use ssup_datum_*_cmp for int2, oid, and oid8 sort support

From: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Use ssup_datum_*_cmp for int2, oid, and oid8 sort support
Date: 2026-08-04 10:35:55
Message-ID: CANWCAZaU2YTzjS4QQ8QnemLe1Fjsy-H0Bz2M6J1ngk72zoXTXw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 7:04 PM Zsolt Parragi <zsolt(dot)parragi(at)percona(dot)com> wrote:
>
> LGTM.
>
> + * We cannot use ssup_datum_unsigned_cmp here, since we cannot count on
> + * Datums being zero-extended.
>
> One nitpick that this explains the why, but it doesn't mention the
> difference with oid8.

Do you mean prefacing the above with "Unlike the oid8 case, ..." ?

--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2026-08-04 10:53:27 Re: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication
Previous Message shveta malik 2026-08-04 10:28:03 Re: [PATCH] Release replication slot on error in SQL-callable slot functions