Committed.
--
nathan
On Wed, Jun 04, 2025 at 01:53:06PM -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> It seems okay to me to commit it to HEAD as it's a cosmetic change and
> improves the consistency between v18 and 19.
Right. It looks confusing to leave these at 0 rather than NULL as
they mean a pointer, for the same reasons as w
On Wed, Jun 4, 2025 at 12:48 PM Nathan Bossart wrote:
>
> 0001 changes test_dsm_registry.c to use PG_GETARG_INT32 and
> PG_RETURN_INT32. The installation script and the C code both used signed
> integers, so I'm not sure why I used PG_GETARG/RETURN_UINT32 in commit
> 8b2bcf3. I'm planning to bac
0001 changes test_dsm_registry.c to use PG_GETARG_INT32 and
PG_RETURN_INT32. The installation script and the C code both used signed
integers, so I'm not sure why I used PG_GETARG/RETURN_UINT32 in commit
8b2bcf3. I'm planning to back-patch this one to v17, where the DSM
registry was first introdu
