Em qui., 22 de dez. de 2022 às 15:45, Nikita Malakhov <hukutoc@gmail.com> escreveu:Hi,Actually, there would be much more sources affected, like nbytes += subbytes[outer_nelems]; subnitems[outer_nelems] = ArrayGetNItems(this_ndims, ARR_DIMS(array)); nitems += subnitems[outer_nelems]; havenulls |= ARR_HASNULL(array); outer_nelems++; }Maybe it is better for most calls like this to keep old behavior, by passing a flagthat says which behavior is expected by caller?I agreed that it is better to keep old behavior.Even the value 0 is problematic, with calls like this: nel = ARRNELEMS(ent); memcpy(ptr, ARRPTR(ent), nel * sizeof(int32)); regards,Ranier Vilela
Hi,Actually, there would be much more sources affected, like nbytes += subbytes[outer_nelems]; subnitems[outer_nelems] = ArrayGetNItems(this_ndims, ARR_DIMS(array)); nitems += subnitems[outer_nelems]; havenulls |= ARR_HASNULL(array); outer_nelems++; }Maybe it is better for most calls like this to keep old behavior, by passing a flagthat says which behavior is expected by caller?
pgsql-hackers by date:
Соглашаюсь с условиями обработки персональных данных