On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 06:36:38PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Marko Kreen <marko@l-t.ee> writes:
> > I would not object to just sticking '& 255' there,
>
> The patch actually says '% 255' which is a whole different animal;
> it still requires explaining though.
Yeah, I was hinting that '& 255' I could accept with less
explaining...
--
marko