On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier > <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Simon Riggs wrote: >>> On 8 May 2015 at 13:02, Michael Paquier wrote: >>>> I think that we should redefine subxcnt as uint32 for consistency with >>>> xcnt, and remove the two assertions that 924bcf4 has introduced. I >>>> could get a patch quickly done FWIW. >>> >>> (uint32) +1 >> >> Attached is the patch. This has finished by being far simpler than >> what I thought first. > > I'm just going to remove the useless assertion for now. What you're > proposing here may (or may not) be worth doing, but it carries a > non-zero risk of breaking something somewhere, if anyone is relying on > the signed-ness of that type. Removing the assertion is definitely > safe.
Fine for me. That's indeed possible for an extension. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
