Re: Switch buffile.c/h to use pgoff_t

From: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bryan Green <dbryan(dot)green(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Switch buffile.c/h to use pgoff_t
Date: 2025-12-19 03:00:54
Message-ID: 85F6E9BB-59E8-4BD5-9FC1-357C3ACD5F87@gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> On Dec 19, 2025, at 09:43, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> (Added Bryan in CC as he has been looking at this stuff previously.)
>
> An mentioned on this thread and as a part of the quest to remove more
> of long in the tree, buffile.c and buffile.h still rely on an
> unportable off_t, which is signed 4 bytes on Windows:
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0f238ff4-c442-42f5-adb8-01b762c94ca1@gmail.com
>
> Please find attached a patch to do the switch. I was surprised to see
> that the amount of code to adapt was limited, the routines of
> buffile.h changed in this commit being used in other places that keep
> track of offsets. Hence these other files just need to do a off_t =>
> pgoff_t flip in a couple of structures to be updated, as far as I can
> see.
>
> This removes a couple of extra long casts, as well as one comment in
> BufFileSeek() that relates to overflows for large offsets, that would
> not exist with this switch, which is nice.
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Michael
> <0001-Switch-buffile.c-h-to-use-portable-pgoff_t.patch>

```
while (wpos < file->nbytes)
{
- off_t availbytes;
+ pgoff_t availbytes;
instr_time io_start;
instr_time io_time;

@@ -524,7 +524,7 @@ BufFileDumpBuffer(BufFile *file)
bytestowrite = file->nbytes - wpos;
availbytes = MAX_PHYSICAL_FILESIZE - file->curOffset;

- if ((off_t) bytestowrite > availbytes)
+ if ((pgoff_t) bytestowrite > availbytes)
bytestowrite = (int) availbytes;
```

bytestowrite is of type int, loosing it to pgoff_t then compare with availbytes, if bytestowrite > availbytes, then availbytes must be within the range of int, so the next assignment “bytestowrite = (int) availbytes” is safe, but makes reading difficult.

Given MAX_PHYSICAL_FILESIZE is just 1G (2^30), why availbytes has to be pgoff_t instead of just int?

Best regards,
--
Chao Li (Evan)
HighGo Software Co., Ltd.
https://www.highgo.com/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2025-12-19 03:16:00 Re: Fix wrong reference in pg_overexplain's doc
Previous Message John Naylor 2025-12-19 02:57:21 Re: [PATCH] CRC32C optimizations using SVE2 on ARM.