Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "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: 2020-11-02 15:59:11
Message-ID: b73c7919-a311-6cf5-aed6-bf2cd8641c52@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I have committed 0003.

For 0001, normal_rand(), I think you should reject negative arguments
with an error.

For 0002, I think you should change the block number arguments to int8,
same as other contrib modules do.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2020-11-02 16:02:21 Re: [patch] [doc] Clarify that signal functions have no feedback
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2020-11-02 15:57:52 Re: PATCH: Batch/pipelining support for libpq