| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code |
| Date: | 2020-07-02 19:39:42 |
| Message-ID: | 864019.1593718782@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:53 AM James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Do you think it's reasonable to use int64 across the board for memory
>> and disk space numbers then? If so, I can update the patch.
> Using int64 as a replacement for long is the safest general strategy,
mumble ssize_t mumble
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-07-02 19:42:48 | Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2020-07-02 19:36:34 | Re: pg_read_file() with virtual files returns empty string |