Обсуждение: fix type of infomask parameter in static inline functions

I noticed that a couple of the functions added by commit 34694ec use
"int16" instead of "uint16" for the infomask parameter.  I don't think
there are any live bugs here, but IMHO we should at least fix this for v19
to help prevent future problems.

Assuming there is agreement on this change, any thoughts on back-patching?

-- 
nathan

Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com> writes:
> I noticed that a couple of the functions added by commit 34694ec use
> "int16" instead of "uint16" for the infomask parameter.  I don't think
> there are any live bugs here, but IMHO we should at least fix this for v19
> to help prevent future problems.

> Assuming there is agreement on this change, any thoughts on back-patching?

+1 for changing, but -1 for back-patching.  Unless you're itching
for reasons to update .abi-compliance-history.  But if there's no
live bug, that seems like make-work.

            regards, tom lane

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 05:16:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> +1 for changing, but -1 for back-patching.  Unless you're itching
> for reasons to update .abi-compliance-history.  But if there's no
> live bug, that seems like make-work.

Yeah, makes sense.  Committed, thanks for looking.

-- 
nathan