On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 12:02 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Michael Paquier
> <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:27 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> On 8 May 2015 at 13:02, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>> I think that we should redefine subxcnt as uint32 for consistency with
>>>> xcnt, and remove the two assertions that 924bcf4 has introduced. I
>>>> could get a patch quickly done FWIW.
>>>
>>> (uint32) +1
>>
>> Attached is the patch. This has finished by being far simpler than
>> what I thought first.
>
> I'm just going to remove the useless assertion for now. What you're
> proposing here may (or may not) be worth doing, but it carries a
> non-zero risk of breaking something somewhere, if anyone is relying on
> the signed-ness of that type. Removing the assertion is definitely
> safe.
Fine for me. That's indeed possible for an extension.
--
Michael