Re: INT64_FORMAT in translatable strings

At Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:29:46 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in
> Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 07:49:23PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> >> May I ask why you are using "unsigned long long int" rather uint64?
>
> > My understanding is that it's the project standard. See e.g.
> > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1730584.1617836485@sss.pgh.pa.us
>
> Indeed, using %lld, %llu, etc with a matching cast to "long long" or
> "unsigned long long" is the approved way. Don't use [u]int64 because
> that does not necessarily match these format specs. It's probably
> physically compatible, but that won't stop pickier compilers from
> nagging about a format mismatch.
>
> But what I thought Michael was griping about is the use of "int",
> which is a noise word here. Either "long long int" or "long long"
> will work, but I think we've preferred the latter because shorter.

Yeah, there's no reason for the "int" other than just following the
immediate preceding commit 3286065651. I also prefer the shorter
notations. Attached.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center