| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Portability concerns over pq_sendbyte? |
| Date: | 2018-06-13 18:53:21 |
| Message-ID: | 20180613185321.dcvh6vb7fj4f3kl4@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2018-06-13 14:10:37 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 02:25:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:27:58PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Do you have an answer to this question? Does anybody else?
> >>
> >> (My guts tell me it'd be better to change these routines to take
> >> unsigned values, without creating extra variants. But guts frequently
> >> misspeak.)
> >
> > My guts are telling me as well to not have more variants.
Agreed.
> > On top of that it seems to me that we'd want to rename any new
> > routines to include "uint" in their name instead of "int", and for
> > compatibility with past code pq_sendint should not be touched.
I'm very doubtful about this one, unless you mean that just the
signature shouldn't be touched. Otherwise we'll just increase code
duplication unnecessarily?
> And also pq_sendint64 needs to be kept around for compatibility.
:(. Wonder if it's better to just break people's code.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Daniel Gustafsson | 2018-06-13 18:54:03 | Re: [HACKERS] Optional message to user when terminating/cancelling backend |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-06-13 18:50:11 | Re: Portability concerns over pq_sendbyte? |