Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)

On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 8:13 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> At Tue, 31 Jan 2023 15:12:14 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 1:40 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> > <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi, Kuroda-san, Thanks for the detailed study.
> > >
> > > At Tue, 31 Jan 2023 07:06:40 +0000, "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote in
> > > > Therefore, I think we can say that modern platforms that are supported by PostgreSQL define int as 32-bit.
> > > > It satisfies the condition sizeof(int) <= sizeof(int32), so we can keep to use INT_MAX.
> > >
> > > Yeah, I know that that's practically correct. Just I wanted to make
> > > clear is whether we (always) assume int == int32. I don't want to do
> > > that just because that works. Even though we cannot be perfect, in
> > > this particular case the destination space is explicitly made as
> > > int32.
> > >
> >
> > So, shall we check if the result of parse_int is in the range 0 and
> > PG_INT32_MAX to ameliorate this concern?
>
> Yeah, it is exactly what I wanted to suggest.
>
> > If this works then we need to
> > probably change the return value of defGetMinApplyDelay() to int32.
>
> I didn't thought doing that, int can store all values in the valid
> range (I'm assuming we implicitly assume int >= int32 in bit width)
> and it is the natural integer in C. Either will do for me but I
> slightly prefer to use int there.
>

I think it would be clear to use int32 because the parameter where we
store the return value is also int32.

--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.