Re: Portability concerns over pq_sendbyte?

On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 02:25:44PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 12:27:58PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Do you have an answer to this question?  Does anybody else?
>> 
>> (My guts tell me it'd be better to change these routines to take
>> unsigned values, without creating extra variants.  But guts frequently
>> misspeak.)
> 
> My guts are telling me as well to not have more variants.  On top of
> that it seems to me that we'd want to rename any new routines to include
> "uint" in their name instead of "int", and for compatibility with past
> code pq_sendint should not be touched.

And also pq_sendint64 needs to be kept around for compatibility.  I have
quickly looked at how much code would be involved here and there are
quite close to 240 code paths which involve the new routines.  Please
see attached for reference, I have not put much thoughts into it to be
honest, so that's really at an early stage.
--
Michael