On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 1:03 AM, Michael Paquier wrote: >> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >>> I'm just going to remove the useless assertion for now. What you're >>> proposing here may (or may not) be worth doing, but it carries a >>> non-zero risk of breaking something somewhere, if anyone is relying on >>> the signed-ness of that type. Removing the assertion is definitely >>> safe. >> >> Fine for me. That's indeed possible for an extension. > > Btw, I think that your commit message should have given some credit to > Coverity for finding the problem. Not a big deal though.
The first report I received was from Andres via IM, actually: it showed up as a compiler warning for him. I just didn't get around to doing anything about it before this one showed up. I could have explained all that in the commit message, but for a one-line change, it didn't quite seem worth having 3 or 4 lines to attribute credit. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
