| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | 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: | 2020-09-22 20:11:01 |
| Message-ID: | 1310787.1600805461@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 3:53 PM Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> I think we mostly use it for the few places where we currently expose
>> data as a signed integer on the SQL level, but internally actually treat
>> it as a unsigned data.
> So why is the right solution to that not DatumGetInt32() + a cast to uint32?
You're ignoring the xid use-case, for which DatumGetUInt32 actually is
the right thing. I tend to agree though that if the SQL argument is
of a signed type, the least API-abusing answer is a signed DatumGetXXX
macro followed by whatever cast you need.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-09-22 20:17:59 | Re: new heapcheck contrib module |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-09-22 20:07:10 | Re: Lift line-length limit for pg_service.conf |