Re: Time delayed LR (WAS Re: logical replication restrictions)

At Wed, 1 Feb 2023 08:38:11 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 8:13 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
> <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > At Tue, 31 Jan 2023 15:12:14 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote in
> > > So, shall we check if the result of parse_int is in the range 0 and
> > > PG_INT32_MAX to ameliorate this concern?
> >
> > Yeah, it is exactly what I wanted to suggest.
> >
> > > If this works then we need to
> > > probably change the return value of defGetMinApplyDelay() to int32.
> >
> > I didn't thought doing that, int can store all values in the valid
> > range (I'm assuming we implicitly assume int >= int32 in bit width)
> > and it is the natural integer in C. Either will do for me but I
> > slightly prefer to use int there.
> >
>
> I think it would be clear to use int32 because the parameter where we
> store the return value is also int32.

I'm fine with that.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center