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 <tgl@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