I think UInt32GetDatum(metad->hashm_procid) looks fine, the reason
being 'hashm_procid' is defined as 32-bit unsigned integer but then we
may have to define procid as int8 in SQL function.
>>>
>>> No, you're wrong. The GetDatum you choose macro has to match the SQL
>>> type, not the
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Ashutosh Sharma
>> wrote:
>>> I think UInt32GetDatum(metad->hashm_procid) looks fine, the reason
>>> being 'hashm_procid' is defined as 32-bit unsigned
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 8:29 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>> I think UInt32GetDatum(metad->hashm_procid) looks fine, the reason
>> being 'hashm_procid' is defined as 32-bit unsigned integer but then we
>> may have to define procid as int8 in SQL f
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> One thing to think about is what will happen if someday we want to use
> 64-bit hash codes (a day I think is not that far away). It sounds like
> you've already chosen bigint for any output field that represents a
> hash code or a related value s
Robert Haas writes:
> So based on that theory, here's a patch.
> ...
> In short, this patch makes hashfuncs.c consistent about (1) using the
> next wider signed type to report unsigned values and (2) using the
> GetDatum macro that matches the SQL return type in width and
> signedness. Objections
Robert Haas writes:
> Hopefully that will turn the buildfarm green again, but we'll see.
It won't make the unhappy 64-bit machines happy, but I just pushed
a change that should deal with those problems. With a little luck
we're over the hump now.
regards, tom lane
--
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> What needs to be resolved to decide if any of this is actually sane is to
>> figure out which of these values need to be int64 on the SQL side because
>> (a) they could practically exceed the range of signed int32 and (b) it
>> would bother us
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
>> I think for now selecting named fields is sufficient.
>
> +1. Attached is the patch that has this changes.
Thanks for the patch, but you only handled one of the two cases Tom
reported upthread. Added a fix for the other one and committed
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 10:28 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Robert Haas writes:
>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 11:16 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I just made the C code agree with what the SQL declarations for the
>>> functions say.
>
>> Doesn't look like it to me. You changed a bunch of places that say
>> UInt3
On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:41 AM, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> I think UInt32GetDatum(metad->hashm_procid) looks fine, the reason
> being 'hashm_procid' is defined as 32-bit unsigned integer but then we
> may have to define procid as int8 in SQL function.
No, you're wrong. The GetDatum you choose macr
10 matches
Mail list logo