Re: INT64_FORMAT in translatable strings

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: INT64_FORMAT in translatable strings
Date: 2021-04-22 13:29:46
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 07:49:23PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> May I ask why you are using "unsigned long long int" rather uint64?

> My understanding is that it's the project standard. See e.g.

Indeed, using %lld, %llu, etc with a matching cast to "long long" or
"unsigned long long" is the approved way. Don't use [u]int64 because
that does not necessarily match these format specs. It's probably
physically compatible, but that won't stop pickier compilers from
nagging about a format mismatch.

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.

regards, tom lane

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Fujii Masao 2021-04-22 13:42:14 Re: wal stats questions
Previous Message Daniil Zakhlystov 2021-04-22 13:04:05 Re: libpq compression