Re: INT64_FORMAT in translatable strings

On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:43:09AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> At Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:29:46 -0400, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote in
>> But what I thought Michael was griping about is the use of "int",
>> which is a noise word here. Either "long long int" or "long long"
>> will work, but I think we've preferred the latter because shorter.

Yep, that's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

> Yeah, there's no reason for the "int" other than just following the
> immediate preceding commit 3286065651. I also prefer the shorter
> notations. Attached.

Note that 3286065 only worked on signed integers.

> - (uint32) (prefetcher->reader->EndRecPtr << 32),
> - (uint32) (prefetcher->reader->EndRecPtr),
> [..]
> + LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(prefetcher->reader->EndRecPtr),

Good catch here. LSN_FORMAT_ARGS() exists to prevent such errors.

And applied. Thanks!
--
Michael