On 3/6/17 16:33, Tomas Vondra wrote: >> I think it would be better not to maintain so much duplicate code >> between bt_page_items(text, int) and bt_page_items(bytea). How about >> just redefining bt_page_items(text, int) as an SQL-language function >> calling bt_page_items(get_raw_page($1, $2))? >> > > Maybe. We can also probably share the code at the C level, so I'll look > into that.
I think SQL would be easier, but either way some reduction in duplication would be good. >> For page_checksum(), the checksums are internally unsigned, so maybe >> return type int on the SQL level, so that there is no confusion about >> the sign? >> > > That ship already sailed, I'm afraid. We already have checksum in the > page_header() output, and it's defined as smallint there. So using int > here would be inconsistent. OK, no worries then. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
