On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 4:41 PM, Kuntal Ghosh <kuntalghosh.2...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I've not yet started the patch and it may take some time for me to
>> understand and write
>> the patch in a correct way. Since, you've almost written the patch,
>> IMHO, please go ahead
>> and submit the patch. I'll happily review and test it. :-)
>>
>> Thanks for the notes.
>
> OK, thanks. Here you go.
>
Thanks for the patch. It looks good and it solves the existing issues.
But, I'm little concerned/doubt regarding the following part of the code.
+/*
+ * Converts an int64 from network byte order to native format.
+ */
+static int64
+pg_recvint64(int64 value)
+{
+ union
+ {
+ int64 i64;
+ uint32 i32[2];
+ } swap;
+ int64 result;
+
+ swap.i64 = value;
+
+ result = (uint32) ntohl(swap.i32[0]);
+ result <<= 32;
+ result |= (uint32) ntohl(swap.i32[1]);
+
+ return result;
+}
Does this always work correctly irrespective of the endianess of the
underlying system?
--
Thanks & Regards,
Kuntal Ghosh
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
