Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code
Date: 2020-07-02 19:39:42
Message-ID: 864019.1593718782@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:53 AM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Do you think it's reasonable to use int64 across the board for memory
>> and disk space numbers then? If so, I can update the patch.

> Using int64 as a replacement for long is the safest general strategy,

mumble ssize_t mumble

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2020-07-02 19:42:48 Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code
Previous Message Tom Lane 2020-07-02 19:36:34 Re: pg_read_file() with virtual files returns empty string