Re: perl checking

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: perl checking
Date: 2018-05-22 14:09:02
Message-ID: 31776.1526998142@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 05/22/2018 04:11 AM, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
>> At Fri, 18 May 2018 14:02:39 -0400, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote in <5a6d6de8-cff8-1ffb-946c-ccf381800ea1(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
>>> One patch silences a warning from convutils.pl about the unportability
>>> of the literal 0x100000000. We've run for many years without this
>>> giving us a problem, so I think we can turn the warning off pretty
>>> safely.

>> It was introduced by aeed17d000 (in 2017). The history of the
>> file is rather short. Over 32-bit values do not apperar as a
>> character so there's no problem in ignoring the warning for now,
>> but can't we use bigint to silence it instead?

> It would impose an additional dependency. bigint isn't installed by
> default on many systems AFAICT, so I think we'd need a better reason
> than this to require it.

I agree with not adding a dependency (although FWIW, bigint does seem
to be there in my minimal perl setups). But can't we fix it like this:

- elsif ($in < 0x100000000)
+ elsif ($in <= 0xffffffff)

At least in a quick test here, "-cw" doesn't moan about 0xffffffff.

For consistency, the other arms of the "if" should be adjusted
similarly.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Paolo Crosato 2018-05-22 14:18:20 Error on vacuum: xmin before relfrozenxid
Previous Message Robert Haas 2018-05-22 13:17:15 Re: PostgreSQL “tuple already updated by self”