Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Date: 2023-11-16 14:03:46
Message-ID: 5047be8c-7ee6-4dd5-af76-6c916c3103b4@iki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 26/09/2023 07:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 10:42:49AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Indeed, or Windows decides that making long 8-byte is wiser, but I
>> doubt that's ever going to happen on backward-compatibility ground.
>
> While looking more at that, I've noticed that I missed BufFileAppend()
> and BufFileSeekBlock(), that themselves rely on long. The other code
> paths calling these two routines rely on BlockNumber (aka uint32), so
> that seems to be the bottom of it.

BufFileTellBlock should be adjusted too. Or removed altogether; it's
been commented out since year 2000. Other than that, looks good to me.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Heikki Linnakangas 2023-11-16 14:33:52 Re: psql not responding to SIGINT upon db reconnection
Previous Message Bharath Rupireddy 2023-11-16 13:43:27 Re: retire MemoryContextResetAndDeleteChildren backwards compatibility macro