Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes

From: ilmari(at)ilmari(dot)org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker )
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>
Cc: Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes
Date: 2021-07-26 20:21:58
Message-ID: 87o8aohlll.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:

> On 2021-Jul-25, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
>> > BTW, one aspect of this that I'm unsure how to tackle is the
>> > common usage of "L" constants; in particular, "work_mem * 1024L"
>> > is a really common idiom that we'll need to get rid of. Not sure
>> > that grep will be a useful aid for finding those.
>> >
>> I can see 30 matches in the head tree. (grep -d "1024L" *.c)
>
> grep grep '[0-9]L\>' -- *.[chyl]
> shows some more constants.

git grep -Eiw '(0x[0-9a-f]+|[0-9]+)U?LL?' -- *.[chyl]

gives about a hundred more hits.

We also have the (U)INT64CONST() macros, which are about about two
thirds as common as the U?LL? suffixes.

- ilmari

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2021-07-26 20:24:46 Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers)
Previous Message Stephen Frost 2021-07-26 20:15:23 Re: needless complexity in StartupXLOG