Feedback-ID: i0fe9450f:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 14:28:04 +0900
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Cc: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander@tigerdata.com>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
	Kirill Reshke <reshkekirill@gmail.com>,
	David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>,
	Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>,
	melanieplageman@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Define DatumGetInt8 function.
Message-ID: <afLoZCVfp0e6fRYV@paquier.xyz>
References: 
 <CALdSSPg6UgK+6LJmFQ6G3av4J6dbngN7=QwQEuFZApnpmXgVWQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAApHDvoShMiWPSkV8zE3tu7uo9GEmuoe=gTpM0+GfOFh2iDmmw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALdSSPjmukA1WGyYVqJMPD8080Rm9oXPVLn5T64xFCj6wKAenQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ7c6TPsaLW7O67vqv8YyV_qUUjF0pncDB7dCQJFDw0so7wrdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALdSSPjSaTvQL28csVo-8hNg8xJ5=YFr6qwtF=JAMLb1eJO2gQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ7c6TM4zecvHj0F9Xk-V1gKqjYQOR4EjerTVkrZ18+w-6JN3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <7f39480a-4b7a-4a51-a9ec-d1189b44432d@eisentraut.org>
 <CAJ7c6TMcGu8qmRe1gZfJ-gOzVnZq-t=fwn-UuyStx1w6ZyydMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <b9df26bc-b19d-4d73-82ae-1ebb6d34dfd4@eisentraut.org>
 <afBB-yRQqxBASYIr@paquier.xyz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="7cN61zPzngsQLGgx"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <afBB-yRQqxBASYIr@paquier.xyz>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/afLoZCVfp0e6fRYV%40paquier.xyz>
Precedence: bulk


--7cN61zPzngsQLGgx
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Tue, Apr 28, 2026 at 02:13:31PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> In short, it took me some time to put some order into all that,
> finishing with the attached patch set.  0001 is the minimum for v19,
> that reverts 6dcfac9696cb so as we have more *GetDatum() matching with
> the types in the SQL functions.  That would take care of the open item
> on top of my head.

This was not completely right after a second look.  6dcfac9696cb did
not get things completely wrong, either, the brin and gist parts of
the changes were right.  I have undone the incorrect bits for now to
address the open item.

> 0002 is a set of fixes that I have spotted while investigating this
> set of issues in depth.  These spots are actually wrong, some of them
> for a long time.  I would be slightly tempted to do something about
> these in v19 rather than wait for v20, as these are somewhat latent
> bugs, to have more consistency across the board.  Has anybody from the
> RMT an opinion to offer?  There is not much urgency in it, still..
> Added the RMT in CC for opinions.

This deserves a different discussion, unrelated to DatumGetInt8().
I'll post that on a separate thread, for v20.
--
Michael

--7cN61zPzngsQLGgx
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=EkdT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--7cN61zPzngsQLGgx--