Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
| От | Heikki Linnakangas |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 5047be8c-7ee6-4dd5-af76-6c916c3103b4@iki.fi обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long? (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 26/09/2023 07:15, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 10:42:49AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Indeed, or Windows decides that making long 8-byte is wiser, but I >> doubt that's ever going to happen on backward-compatibility ground. > > While looking more at that, I've noticed that I missed BufFileAppend() > and BufFileSeekBlock(), that themselves rely on long. The other code > paths calling these two routines rely on BlockNumber (aka uint32), so > that seems to be the bottom of it. BufFileTellBlock should be adjusted too. Or removed altogether; it's been commented out since year 2000. Other than that, looks good to me. -- Heikki Linnakangas Neon (https://neon.tech)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: