Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: "Hou, Zhijie" <houzj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-09-21T19:53:11Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hi, On 2020-09-21 14:08:22 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > There is no SQL type corresponding to the C data type uint32, so I'm > not sure why we even have DatumGetUInt32. I'm sort of suspicious that > there's some fuzzy thinking going on there. I think we mostly use it for the few places where we currently expose data as a signed integer on the SQL level, but internally actually treat it as a unsigned data. There's not a lot of those, but there e.g. is pg_class.relpages. There also may be places where we use it for functions that can be created but not called from SQL (using the INTERNAL type). - Andres
Commits
-
pageinspect: Change block number arguments to bigint
- f18aa1b20393 14.0 landed
-
tablefunc: Reject negative number of tuples passed to normal_rand()
- f73999262ed6 14.0 landed
-
Use PG_GETARG_TRANSACTIONID where appropriate
- dd26a0ad760b 14.0 landed