Re: Do we want a hashset type?

On Fri, Jun 30, 2023, at 06:50, jian he wrote:
> more like a C questions
> in this context does
> #define HASHSET_GET_VALUES(set) ((int32 *) ((set)->data +
> CEIL_DIV((set)->capacity, 8)))
> define first, then define struct int4hashset_t. Is this normally ok?

Yes, it's fine. Macros are just text substitutions done pre-compilation.

> Also does
> #define HASHSET_GET_VALUES(set) ((int32 *) ((set)->data +
> CEIL_DIV((set)->capacity, 8)))
>
> remove (int32 *) will make it generic? then when you use it, you can
> cast whatever type you like?

Maybe, but might be less error-prone more descriptive with different
macros for each type, e.g. INT4HASHSET_GET_VALUES,
similar to the existing PG_GETARG_INT4HASHSET

Curious to hear what everybody thinks about the interface, documentation,
semantics and implementation?

Is there anything missing or something that you think should be changed/improved?

/Joel