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

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
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: 2023-09-22 04:53:02
Message-ID: CAH2-Wznebmt-kDD35qAn-t6vUhtH6iTVxEGWBq7ihNUZ16HK4Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 9:46 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> So, attached is a patch to change these longs to int64. Any thoughts?

No new thoughts. I'm still all in favor of this. Thanks for picking it up.

At some point we should completely ban the use of "long".

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Ryoga Yoshida 2023-09-22 04:58:37 Doesn't pgstat_report_wal() handle the argument "force" incorrectly
Previous Message 程ゆき 2023-09-22 04:49:56 Try adding type cast with tablespace