| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: "long" type is not appropriate for counting tuples |
| Date: | 2019-05-22 19:07:40 |
| Message-ID: | ba8ddfb5-384d-a21b-1358-0cf5e604f325@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-05-22 17:52, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't really see how controlling snprintf is enough to get somewhere
> on this. Sure we could invent some new always-64-bit length modifier
> and teach snprintf.c about it, but none of the other tools we use
> would know about it. I don't want to give up compiler cross-checking
> of printf formats, do you?
Could we define int64 to be long long int on all platforms and just
always use %lld?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2019-05-22 19:12:39 | Re: Is it safe to ignore the return value of SPI_finish and SPI_execute? |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-05-22 19:06:19 | Re: "long" type is not appropriate for counting tuples |