| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code |
| Date: | 2020-08-02 02:26:25 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvq5v7hS-Cnb9nYagDkBFTSv1ifFch_-3uCNX0rSD9FnCg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 02:02, James Coleman <jtc331(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I'd previously attached a patch [1], and there seemed to be agreement
> it was reasonable (lightly so, but I also didn't see any
> disagreement); would someone be able to either commit the change or
> provide some additional feedback?
It looks fine to me. Pushed.
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2020-08-02 04:02:42 | Re: display offset along with block number in vacuum errors |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2020-08-02 01:53:43 | Re: Comment simplehash/dynahash trade-offs |