On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 08:40:47PM +0100, Mats Kindahl wrote: > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 5:27 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> We do pretty much assume that "int" is "int32". But I agree that >> assuming anything about the width of size_t is bad. I think we need >> a separate pg_cmp_size() or pg_cmp_size_t(). > > Do we want to have something similar for "int" as well? It seems to be > quite common and even though it usually is an int32, it does not have to be.
I don't think we need separate functions for int and int32. As Tom noted, we assume they are the same. -- Nathan Bossart Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
