| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unportable code in autoprewarm.c |
| Date: | 2018-05-03 00:24:38 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobFF9Ev_JjfgatMCRJtdpmXwQqrs2rU5jTQ6t_gmYkZyw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 3:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Is there a reason why this record count needs to be int64 rather than
> plain int, and if so what? This code is not exactly well documented,
> but it looks to me like the number of records should be bounded by
> NBuffers, which is an int and is unlikely ever to not be an int.
> So I'm inclined to just flush autoprewarm.c's use of int64 counters
> altogether.
I don't know of a reason not to make that change.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Yuriy Zhuravlev | 2018-05-03 00:29:32 | Re: Is a modern build system acceptable for older platforms |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2018-05-03 00:11:22 | Re: Is there a memory leak in commit 8561e48? |