Re: INT64_FORMAT in translatable strings

At Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:26:09 +0900, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote in
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:43:09AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > At Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:29:46 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in
> >> 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.
>
> Yep, that's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.
>
> > Yeah, there's no reason for the "int" other than just following the
> > immediate preceding commit 3286065651. I also prefer the shorter
> > notations. Attached.
>
> Note that 3286065 only worked on signed integers.

Yes. it uses redundant "int" for "long".

> > - (uint32) (prefetcher->reader->EndRecPtr << 32),
> > - (uint32) (prefetcher->reader->EndRecPtr),
> > [..]
> > + LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(prefetcher->reader->EndRecPtr),
>
> Good catch here. LSN_FORMAT_ARGS() exists to prevent such errors.
>
> And applied. Thanks!

Thanks!

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center