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
