Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use
Date
Msg-id 20171230130822.GC7704@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use  (Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] taking stdbool.h into use  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Commits don't block for synchronous replication
Next
From: Dave Cramer
Date:
Subject: What does Time.MAX_VALUE actually represent?