Re: Implicit conversion from int64 to int32 when calling hash_get_num_entries

From: Karina Litskevich <litskevichkarina(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Implicit conversion from int64 to int32 when calling hash_get_num_entries
Date: 2026-08-10 12:21:39
Message-ID: CACiT8ibjn0tUy5oE_y2eZOFRUFjdsgkwgFq_8tSvq36GG9=LsA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Jul 31, 2026 at 11:07 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>
> For future reference, you can prevent the bot from applying
> "alternative" patches by naming your attachments properly.
> A common choice is to append ".nocfbot" to the name of any
> attachment you want the bot to ignore. More info here:
>
> https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Cfbot#Which_attachments_are_considered_to_be_patches?
>

Thank you! This is very helpful.

Best regards,
Karina Litskevich
Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karina Litskevich 2026-08-10 12:29:49 Re: Implicit conversion from int64 to int32 when calling hash_get_num_entries
Previous Message vignesh C 2026-08-10 12:02:43 Re: Hash index bucket split bug