Re: Portability concerns over pq_sendbyte?

On 2018-06-13 14:10:37 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 02:25:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:27:58PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >> Do you have an answer to this question?  Does anybody else?
> >> 
> >> (My guts tell me it'd be better to change these routines to take
> >> unsigned values, without creating extra variants.  But guts frequently
> >> misspeak.)
> > 
> > My guts are telling me as well to not have more variants.

Agreed.


> > On top of that it seems to me that we'd want to rename any new
> > routines to include "uint" in their name instead of "int", and for
> > compatibility with past code pq_sendint should not be touched.

I'm very doubtful about this one, unless you mean that just the
signature shouldn't be touched.  Otherwise we'll just increase code
duplication unnecessarily?


> And also pq_sendint64 needs to be kept around for compatibility.

:(. Wonder if it's better to just break people's code.

Greetings,

Andres Freund