Re: Translation of the NextOID message in pg_controldata

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Translation of the NextOID message in pg_controldata
Date: 2026-09-14 13:57:08
Message-ID: 109494.1789394228@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> writes:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 08:41:59AM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand why we care that we hardcode that Oid8 is the
>> same as uint64. It's never been a problem that Oid is the same as uin32 ...

> For me, the reason is greppability of oid8 information as the
> variables printed in the strings may not refer to variables declared
> in the code.

Yeah. It's not a big deal, so maybe PRIu64 is the best option.
I just wanted to be sure we'd considered whether there's another way.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Burd 2026-09-14 14:01:15 Re: Support for 8-byte TOAST values, round two
Previous Message shihao zhong 2026-09-14 13:53:33 Re: Opportunistic pruning is lost under direct io, and nothing shows it