Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Michael Paquier
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Дата
Msg-id ZRJax7xO-zHSNRbd@paquier.xyz
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?  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>)
Список pgsql-hackers
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.

For now, I have registered this patch to the next CF:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/45/4589/

Comments are welcome.
--
Michael

Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Amit Kapila
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication
Следующее
От: Markur Sens
Дата:
Сообщение: How are jsonb_path_query SRFs $.datetime() defined ?