On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:50 AM Thomas Munro
<thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> I think using pgoff_t would fix the problem on Windows, but on other
> systems where it maps directly to off_t it might also be 32 bits, so
> I'm not entirely sure what pgoff_t is for. Perhaps we should just use
> int64 directly for this? Like in the attached draft patch. I don't
> have a Windows system to test it on. A separate bug report that came
> in today[1] has repro steps that could be used to validate it.
I think that int64 is the way to go.
Should I fix up the diagnostic message to address Tom's complaints
about that in a separate patch?
--
Peter Geoghegan