Re: Should we represent temp files as unsigned long int instead of signed long int type?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should we represent temp files as unsigned long int instead of signed long int type?
Date: 2023-10-26 00:49:49
Message-ID: 1061734.1698281389@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> In the mood of removing long because it may be 4 bytes or 8 bytes
> depending on the environment, I'd suggest to change it to either int64
> or uint64. Not that it matters much for this specific case, but that
> makes the code more portable.

Then you're going to need a not-so-portable conversion spec in the
snprintf call. Not sure it's any improvement.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Daniele Varrazzo 2023-10-26 01:31:33 Re: libpq async connection and multiple hosts
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2023-10-26 00:40:55 Re: Should we represent temp files as unsigned long int instead of signed long int type?