Re: Proposed patch to clean up signed-ness warnings

[Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>]

Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Are you proposing that we change all the "char *" to "unsigned char *"?

> No, I suggest we change all "char *" to "unsigned char *" only where
> it points a string which could hold non ASCII character strings.

Which is pretty nearly all of them...

> To support multiple charsets/collataions, I think we need to change
> the way to represent character strings from the unstructured "char *"
> to more intelligent structure (I know it's hard to implement that
> without significant performance loss, but I know we should do it in
> the future).

Yeah, it's still not clear where we are going to end up, but in the
meantime we've got a lot of warnings cluttering the code and making
it hard to spot real problems.

> So "unsigned char*" is not enough for the goal anyway, I'm not against
> your patches.

OK.  No one else objected, so I'll go ahead and apply before the code
drifts to the point of breaking the patch.

			regards, tom lane