From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: widen vacuum buffer counters |
Date: | 2020-02-01 15:26:31 |
Message-ID: | 16460.1580570791@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:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:13:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, %zd is the wrong format code for int64. Recommended practice
>> these days is to use "%lld" with an explicit cast of the printf argument
>> to long long (just to be sure). That doesn't work safely before v12,
>> and if you did insist on back-patching further, you'd need to jump
>> through hoops to avoid having platform-specific format codes in a
>> translatable string. (The side-effects for translation seem like
>> an independent argument against back-patching.)
> Surely you meant INT64_FORMAT here?
No, because that varies depending on platform, so using it in a
translatable string is a bad idea. See e.g. 6a1cd8b92.
> Anyway, looking at the patch,
> couldn't we just use uint64?
Yeah, I was wondering if those counters shouldn't be unsigned, too.
Probably doesn't matter once we widen them to 64 bits though.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Sehrope Sarkuni | 2020-02-01 15:37:22 | Re: [Proposal] Table-level Transparent Data Encryption (TDE) and Key Management Service (KMS) |
Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2020-02-01 14:24:46 | Re: PATCH: add support for IN and @> in functional-dependency statistics use |