Re: [HACKERS] PATCH: pageinspect / add page_checksum andbt_page_items(bytea)

On 3/6/17 16:33, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> I think it would be better not to maintain so much duplicate code
>> between bt_page_items(text, int) and bt_page_items(bytea).  How about
>> just redefining bt_page_items(text, int) as an SQL-language function
>> calling bt_page_items(get_raw_page($1, $2))?
>>
> 
> Maybe. We can also probably share the code at the C level, so I'll look 
> into that.

I think SQL would be easier, but either way some reduction in
duplication would be good.

>> For page_checksum(), the checksums are internally unsigned, so maybe
>> return type int on the SQL level, so that there is no confusion about
>> the sign?
>>
> 
> That ship already sailed, I'm afraid. We already have checksum in the 
> page_header() output, and it's defined as smallint there. So using int 
> here would be inconsistent.

OK, no worries then.

-- 
Peter Eisentraut              http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services