On 07/12/2017 07:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> writes:
>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 8:42 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>>>> Another option to use "unsigned int", on the assumption that UINT_MAX >=
>>>> INT_MAX * 2 + 1.
>
>>> Ah, that seems like a fine idea.
>
>> Works for me.
>
> I'll go make it so, unless Heikki's already on it?
I'm not. Thanks!
>> And to eliminate that assumption, we can use (UINT_MAX
>> - 1) / 2 as the maximum size of the memtuples array, rather than INT_MAX.
>
> Uh ... what assumption? That's certainly true on any twos-complement
> machine. Besides, if you're worried about hypothetical portability
> issues, ...
Right, it's a hypothetical portability issue. The assumption we're
making is that UINT_MAX >= INT_MAX * 2 + 1. I'm not aware of any system
where it's not true, but I don't know what the C standards say about that.
> ... I'm not sure it's any better to assume that (UINT_MAX - 1) / 2
> fits in a signed int.
Well, you could do Min(INT_MAX, (UINT_MAX - 1 / 2). Or just add a
StaticAssertion for it. Or just note in a comment that we're making that
assumption.
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs