Re: INT64_FORMAT in translatable strings

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.
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1730584.1617836485@sss.pgh.pa.us

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