Re: [BUG] hstore integer overflow when constructing large values

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tender Wang <tndrwang(at)gmail(dot)com>, Keyerror Smart <smartkeyerror(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [BUG] hstore integer overflow when constructing large values
Date: 2026-08-18 06:07:22
Message-ID: aoP2mhfIPOcNPagu@paquier.xyz
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Aug 18, 2026 at 01:54:38PM +0800, jian he wrote:
> https://git.postgresql.org/cgit/postgresql.git/commit/?id=92e20d4a4382810a30bdb394473d6ee891edab73
>
> The consensus seems favoring "size_t" over "Size" for new code, see [1], [2],
> though this doesn't appear to be documented anywhere.

Ugh. c.h says that size_t is just Size, so it's stylistic. I don't
feel strongly one way or another, and hstore tends to prefer camel
case historically.
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Previous Message Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) 2026-08-18 06:06:16 RE: Proposal: Conflict log history table for Logical Replication