Horton

Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use

Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com>
Date: 2017-12-30T13:08:22Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sat, Dec 30, 2017 at 08:29:09AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 12:33:24PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It does make sense, probably, to push 0001-0003 first and see if
>> anything turns up from that, then 0004.
> 
> I have not looked at 0001 in details yet, which was going to be my next
> step. If you could wait for at least two days that would be nice to give
> me some room.

So, looking at 0001 now... Shouldn't there be a DatumGetBool8(), with
the existing DatumGetBool() which should depend on the size of bool? I
can see that all the catalogs are correctly updated with bool8 in the
patch.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Use stdbool.h if suitable

  2. Add configure tests for stdbool.h and sizeof bool

  3. Remove useless use of bit-masking macros

  4. Change various Gin*Is* macros to return 0/1.

  5. Fix several possibly non-portable gaffs in record_image_ops.