Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: pg_buffercache causes assertion failure

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>,pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pg_buffercache causes assertion failure
Date: 2005-05-30 21:53:20
Message-ID: 429B8B50.90500@paradise.net.nz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Mark Kirkwood wrote:

> 
> I couldn't use int4 as the underlying datatype is unsigned int (not 
> available as exposed Pg type). However, using int8 sounds promising (is 
> int8 larger than unsigned int on 64-bit platforms?).

Blocknumber is defined as uint32 in block.h - so should always be safe 
to represent as an int8 I am thinking.

I will look at patching pg_buffercache, changing numeric -> int8 for the 
relblocknumber column. This seems a tidier solution than using numeric, 
and loses the numeric overhead.

regards

Mark

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Mark KirkwoodDate: 2005-05-30 23:27:19
Subject: Re: pg_buffercache causes assertion failure
Previous:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2005-05-30 21:08:23
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Inherited constraints and search paths (was

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Mark KirkwoodDate: 2005-05-30 23:27:19
Subject: Re: pg_buffercache causes assertion failure
Previous:From: GladysDate: 2005-05-30 21:35:40
Subject: Platinum Stock Reports

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group