Re: Implicit conversion from int64 to int32 when calling hash_get_num_entries

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>
Cc: Karina Litskevich <litskevichkarina(at)gmail(dot)com>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Implicit conversion from int64 to int32 when calling hash_get_num_entries
Date: 2026-07-31 20:07:04
Message-ID: 1792081.1785528424@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se> writes:
> On 31 Jul 2026, at 16:14, Karina Litskevich <litskevichkarina(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I'm not sure how CFBot works. It's failing to apply the patch, and
>> I believe it's because I sent two alternative patches in one mail.
>> So I'm resending one patch this time, hoping it will work.

> The CFBot will try to apply all the patches in the mail as a patchset, so your
> suspicion was correct. It's green in the CFBot now.

For future reference, you can prevent the bot from applying
"alternative" patches by naming your attachments properly.
A common choice is to append ".nocfbot" to the name of any
attachment you want the bot to ignore. More info here:

https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Cfbot#Which_attachments_are_considered_to_be_patches?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sami Imseih 2026-07-31 20:08:53 Re: pgstat: Flush some statistics within running transactions, take 2
Previous Message Vladlen Popolitov 2026-07-31 19:54:02 Re: [PATCH v1] add SQL type INT16 based on int128