Re: Signed vs. Unsigned (some)

Em sex., 2 de jul. de 2021 às 07:09, Peter Eisentraut <
peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> escreveu:

> On 16.06.21 10:48, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > On 15.06.21 10:17, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> >> The definitions are not ((type) -1) but ((type) 0xFFFFFFFF) so
> >> actually they might be different if we forget to widen the constant
> >> when widening the types. Regarding to the compiler behavior, I think
> >> we are assuming C99[1] and C99 defines that -1 is converted to
> >> Uxxx_MAX. (6.3.1.3 Singed and unsigned integers)
> >>
> >> I'm +0.2 on it. It might be worthwhile as a matter of style.
> >
> > I think since we have the constants we should use them.
>
> I have pushed the InvalidBucket changes.
>
Nice. Thanks.

> The use of InvalidBlockNumber with vac_update_relstats() looks a bit
> fishy to me. We are using in the same call 0 as the default for
> num_all_visible_pages, and we generally elsewhere also use 0 as the
> starting value for relpages, so it's not clear to me why it should be -1
> or InvalidBlockNumber here.

It seems to me that the only use in vac_update_relstats is to mark relpages
as invalid (dirty = true).

> I'd rather leave it "slightly wrong" for
> now so it can be checked again.
>
Ideally InvalidBlockNumber should be 0.
Maybe in the long run this will be fixed.

regards,
Ranier Vilela