| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: overflow bug for inhcounts |
| Date: | 2024-10-08 17:00:44 |
| Message-ID: | tlfcuuguhz5hursjrtr5y3rjp5uzl4mp7cmdbfcsobhgkwcbcu@aczxrdd5ob7s |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2024-10-08 18:11:39 +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Oh and actually, we could change all these variables to be unsigned,
> since there's no use for negative inhcounts. The patch doesn't do that;
> it'd require changing the subtraction paths to use overflow-protected
> ops as well.
Unfortunately we don't really have a way to represent unsigned numbers on the
SQL level today. So I'd not go there for now - it's not like this is a real
limitation for practical use cases.
One case where I'd like unsigned numbers is pg_class.relpages - it's pretty
awkward that it "looks" negative for large tables. 16TB isn't that large
anymore...
Greetings,
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2024-10-08 17:04:29 | Re: On disable_cost |
| Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2024-10-08 16:58:34 | Re: [PATCH] pg_permissions |