Re: BlockNumber fixes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: BlockNumber fixes
Date: 2002-07-16 06:25:27
Message-ID: 9089.1026800727@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> The only other
> unusual case I saw was tid outputing block number as %d and not %u. Is
> that OK?

Seems like it should use %u. The input side might be wrong too.

> Also, pg_class.relpages is an int. We don't have unsigned int columns.

Yeah. I had a todo item to look at all the uses of relpages and make
sure they were being casted to unsigned ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2002-07-16 06:28:19 Re: Unused system table columns
Previous Message Thomas Lockhart 2002-07-16 06:21:12 Re: bit type external representation