Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code

From: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: "Tang, Haiying" <tanghy(dot)fnst(at)cn(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code
Date: 2020-10-21 21:00:05
Message-ID: 20201021210005.lgod7wnuzvpo4wxo@development
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Oct 21, 2020 at 06:06:52AM +0000, Tang, Haiying wrote:
>Hi
>
>>Found one more place needed to be changed(long -> int64).
>>
>>Also changed the output for int64 data(Debug mode on & define EXEC_SORTDEBUG )
>>
>>And, maybe there's a typo in " src\backend\executor\nodeIncrementalSort.c" as below.
>>Obviously, the ">=" is meaningless, right?
>>
>>And, maybe there's a typo in " src\backend\executor\nodeIncrementalSort.c" as below.
>>Obviously, the ">=" is meaningless, right?
>>
>>- SO1_printf("Sorting presorted prefix tuplesort with >= %ld tuples\n", nTuples);
>>+ SO1_printf("Sorting presorted prefix tuplesort with %ld tuples\n", nTuples);
>>
>>Please take a check at the attached patch file.
>
>I have added it to commit fest.
>https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2772/
>

Thanks, the changes seem fine to me. I'll do a bit more review and get
it pushed.

regards
Tomas

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David G. Johnston 2020-10-21 21:12:03 Re: [PATCH] Add section headings to index types doc
Previous Message Mark Dilger 2020-10-21 20:58:22 Re: new heapcheck contrib module