Re: pgsql: Further code review for pg_lsn data type.

On 2014-02-20 09:59:51 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> > 6.3.1.3 Signed and unsigned integers, paragraph 3:
> > "Otherwise, the new type is signed and the value cannot be represented
> > in it; either the result is implementation-defined or an
> > implementation-defined signal is raised."
>
> "Implementation-defined" is entirely different from "undefined".

Yea, I don't think I talked about undefined behaviour in the context of
this.

The undefined behaviour bit was more about the aliasing and such. I *do*
think it might be worth fixing that someday, but it's certainly nothing
presssing.

> I think you're making a problem out of nothing. We have considerably
> more-real portability issues to worry about, like memory ordering.

I don't think it's a huge problem, but it's pretty easy to avoid, so why
not avoid it?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services