Hi, On 2017-01-25 12:26:21 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > diff --git a/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c > b/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c > index 083c0303dc..2eb3a420ac 100644 > --- a/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c > +++ b/src/backend/access/common/tupdesc.c > @@ -629,6 +629,14 @@ TupleDescInitBuiltinEntry(TupleDesc desc, > att->attstorage = 'p'; > att->attcollation = InvalidOid; > break; > + > + case INT8OID: > + att->attlen = 8; > + att->attbyval = true; > + att->attalign = 'd'; > + att->attstorage = 'p'; > + att->attcollation = InvalidOid; > + break; > } > }
INT8 isn't unconditionally byval, is it? > /* slot_name */ > - len = strlen(NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name)); > - pq_sendint(&buf, len, 4); /* col1 len */ > - pq_sendbytes(&buf, NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name), len); > + values[0] = > PointerGetDatum(cstring_to_text(NameStr(MyReplicationSlot->data.name))); That seems a bit long. I've not done like the most careful review ever, but I'm in favor of the general change (provided the byval thing is fixed obviously). Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
