| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Should logtape.c blocks be of type long? |
| Date: | 2017-02-26 08:58:35 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYc59qwrAiQYsRw5cVeVo+MgK4Mp8q7V-n8HXfd+BL=_A@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 2:44 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> I tend to be suspicious of use of the type "long" in general, because
> in general one should assume that it is no wider than "int". This
> calls into question why any code that uses "long" didn't just use
> "int", at least in my mind.
Yeah. Using things that are guaranteed to be the size we want them to
be (and the same size on all platforms) seems like a good plan.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-26 09:46:08 | Re: Automatic cleanup of oldest WAL segments with pg_receivexlog |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-02-26 08:56:38 | Re: Proposal for changes to recovery.conf API |