On 2017-03-20 16:06:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... is there a reason why resultnum for EEOP_ASSIGN_* steps is declared
> size_t and not just int? Since it's an array index, and one that
> certainly can't be bigger than AttrNumber, that seems rather confusing.
Not that I can see, no. I guess I might have "overcompensated" when
changing it from AttrNumber - AttrNumber isn't a good idea because that
needs an extra move-zero-extend, because 16bit indexing isn't that well
supported on x86. But that doesn't mean it should be a 64bit number -
to the contrary actually.
- Andres
