Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32
Date
Msg-id dcfd8024-41c3-90f2-16d8-c6d3b6ca14e9@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32  (Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh.bapat@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: Improper use about DatumGetInt32  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2020-11-27 13:37, Ashutosh Bapat wrote:
>     Yeah, I had it like that for a moment, but then you need to duplicate
>     the check in get_raw_page() and get_raw_page_fork().  I figured since
>     get_raw_page_internal() does all the other argument checking also, it
>     seems sensible to put the block range check there too.  But it's not a
>     big deal either way.
> 
> 
> FWIW, my 2c. Though I agree with both sides, I 
> prefer get_raw_page_internal() accepting BlockNumber, since that's what 
> it deals with and not the entire int8.

Patch updated this way.  I agree it's better that way.

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Alvaro Herrera
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench - test whether a variable exists
Next
From: "David G. Johnston"
Date:
Subject: Re: [patch] [doc] Minor variable related cleanup and rewording of plpgsql docs