On 2017-03-20 16:06:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > ... is there a reason why resultnum for EEOP_ASSIGN_* steps is declared > size_t and not just int? Since it's an array index, and one that > certainly can't be bigger than AttrNumber, that seems rather confusing.
Not that I can see, no. I guess I might have "overcompensated" when changing it from AttrNumber - AttrNumber isn't a good idea because that needs an extra move-zero-extend, because 16bit indexing isn't that well supported on x86. But that doesn't mean it should be a 64bit number - to the contrary actually. - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
