Re: Switch buffile.c/h to use pgoff_t

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Bryan Green <dbryan(dot)green(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Switch buffile.c/h to use pgoff_t
Date: 2025-12-19 05:22:02
Message-ID: aUTg-rH4mOVF9rTo@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Dec 19, 2025 at 11:00:54AM +0800, Chao Li wrote:
> Given MAX_PHYSICAL_FILESIZE is just 1G (2^30), why availbytes has to
> be pgoff_t instead of just int?

The point of such changes would be to lift this barrier at some point,
which is what the other thread I am mentioning upthread is also
pointing at. It does not change the fact that this code is currently
not portable as written: off_t can be 4 or 8 bytes depending on the
environment, and pgoff_t exists to be a stable alternative. This
relates as well to the use of long in the tree, all coming down to
WIN32.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Chao Li 2025-12-19 05:26:38 Re: DOC: fixes multiple errors in alter table doc
Previous Message Bertrand Drouvot 2025-12-19 05:19:42 Re: Switch buffile.c/h to use pgoff_t