Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > 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. OK, will fix in the edits I'm working on. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers