Re: A bug when use get_bit() function for a long bytea string

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca" <movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A bug when use get_bit() function for a long bytea string
Date: 2020-03-26 14:08:38
Message-ID: 11357.1585231718@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 at 08:18, movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca <movead(dot)li(at)highgo(dot)ca>
> wrote:
>> if we change return type of all those functions to int64, we won't need
>> this cast.
>> I change the 'encode' function, it needs an int64 return type, but keep
>> other
>> functions in 'pg_encoding', because I think it of no necessary reason.

> Ok, let's leave it for a committer to decide.

If I'm grasping the purpose of these correctly, wouldn't Size or size_t
be a more appropriate type? And I definitely agree with changing all
of these APIs at once, if they're all dealing with the same kind of
value.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Julien Rouhaud 2020-03-26 14:12:02 Re: pg_checksums in backend/storage/page/README
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2020-03-26 14:06:34 Re: pg_checksums in backend/storage/page/README