| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: define pg_structiszero(addr, s, r) |
| Date: | 2024-11-05 05:49:22 |
| Message-ID: | Zymx4q58bpBp37mw@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 05, 2024 at 05:08:41PM +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> I was happy enough with my patch with Bertrand's comments. I'm not
> sure why unsigned chars are better than chars. It doesn't seem to have
> any effect on the compiled code.
>
I think that unsigned chars is better than char for byte level memory
operations (no sign extension issues).
Though I agree that using char in this function is not an issue as p is only
compared with 0. This is more a matter of taste here.
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2024-11-05 05:50:06 | Re: Consider pipeline implicit transaction as a transaction block |
| Previous Message | vignesh C | 2024-11-05 05:48:41 | Re: Pgoutput not capturing the generated columns |