On 2024-02-09 14:04:29 -0600, Nathan Bossart wrote: > 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.
+1
