| From: | Bertrand Drouvot <bertranddrouvot(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, 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 05:19:42 |
| Message-ID: | aUTgbggMOa9Jm8za@ip-10-97-1-34.eu-west-3.compute.internal |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
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?
I agree that int would work, but maybe it's using pgoff_t just to be on the safe
side of things should MAX_PHYSICAL_FILESIZE become 2^31 or higher one day?
Regards,
--
Bertrand Drouvot
PostgreSQL Contributors Team
RDS Open Source Databases
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2025-12-19 05:22:02 | Re: Switch buffile.c/h to use pgoff_t |
| Previous Message | Chao Li | 2025-12-19 05:15:10 | Re: A few patches to clarify snapshot management, part 2 |