| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-committers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pgsql: Fix more holes with SLRU code in need of int64 for segment numbe |
| Date: | 2024-08-09 13:08:58 |
| Message-ID: | e1260254-aba7-48e4-89db-98a001b97d71@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers |
On 08.08.24 01:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
>
>> On Aug 8, 2024, at 5:05, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:52 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>>> It looks like the commit I'm talking about here is a subset of v55-0001
>>> from that thread?
>>
>> Yes, looks like this.
>>
>>> So why is some of this being committed now into v17?
>>> But as I wrote above, I think this approach is a bad idea.
>>
>> OK, I agree that might look annoying. So, it's better to revert now.
>> Michael, what do you think?
>
> The argument is two-fold here. The point of this change is that we were forcibly doing a cast to int with int64 values returned, so this commit limits the risks of missing paths in the future, while being consistent with all the SLRU code marking segment numbers with int64 for short *and* long segment file names.
No, this is not what *this* patch does. (I suppose some of the related
patches might be doing that.) This patch just casts a few things that
are int to unsigned long long int before printing them.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-08-09 15:22:04 | pgsql: Fix "failed to find plan for subquery/CTE" errors in EXPLAIN. |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-08-09 05:24:24 | pgsql: Remove obsolete RECHECK keyword completely |