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

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: 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: 2023-09-24 01:42:49
Message-ID: ZQ-UGWtLyHQ9shlp@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 09:53:02PM -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> No new thoughts. I'm still all in favor of this. Thanks for picking it up.

Okay, thanks. I guess that nobody would complain if I were to apply
that..

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

Indeed, or Windows decides that making long 8-byte is wiser, but I
doubt that's ever going to happen on backward-compatibility ground.
--
Michael

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2023-09-24 04:50:39 Re: Avoid a possible out-of-bounds access (src/backend/optimizer/util/relnode.c)
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2023-09-23 23:22:48 Re: nbtree's ScalarArrayOp array mark/restore code appears to be buggy