Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Date: 2023-09-26 04:15:03
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 10:42:49AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Indeed, or Windows decides that making long 8-byte is wiser, but I
> doubt that's ever going to happen on backward-compatibility ground.

While looking more at that, I've noticed that I missed BufFileAppend()
and BufFileSeekBlock(), that themselves rely on long. The other code
paths calling these two routines rely on BlockNumber (aka uint32), so
that seems to be the bottom of it.

For now, I have registered this patch to the next CF:

Comments are welcome.

Attachment Content-Type Size
0001-Change-logtape-tuplestore-code-to-use-int64-for-bloc.patch text/x-diff 17.7 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Markur Sens 2023-09-26 04:19:06 How are jsonb_path_query SRFs $.datetime() defined ?
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2023-09-26 04:10:48 Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication