| From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: pg_buffercache causes assertion failure |
| Date: | 2005-05-30 23:27:19 |
| Message-ID: | 429BA157.4040607@paradise.net.nz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> 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.
This patch changes the use of numeric to int8 to represent the
relblocknumber column.
regards
Mark
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| pg_buffercache.int8.patch | text/plain | 3.1 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-31 00:08:59 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_buffercache causes assertion failure |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2005-05-30 21:53:20 | Re: pg_buffercache causes assertion failure |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-31 00:08:59 | Re: [HACKERS] pg_buffercache causes assertion failure |
| Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2005-05-30 21:53:20 | Re: pg_buffercache causes assertion failure |