On 29.12.21 21:32, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2021-12-27 09:53:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Didn't really read the patch in any detail, but I did have one idea:
>> I think that the different things-that-used-to-be-Value-nodes ought to
>> use different field names, say ival, rval, bval, sval not just "val".
>> That makes it more likely that you'd catch any code that is doing the
>> wrong thing and not going through one of the access macros.
>
> If we go around changing all these places, it might be worth to also change
> Integer to be a int64 instead of an int.
I was actually looking into that, when I realized that most uses of
Integer were actually Booleans. Hence the current patch to clear those
fake Integers out of the way. I haven't gotten to analyze the int64
question any further, but it should be easier hereafter.