| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Translation of the NextOID message in pg_controldata |
| Date: | 2026-09-14 19:01:27 |
| Message-ID: | c86afb31-3250-4400-9b10-1e67f4eb5c1a@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 14.09.26 09:08, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2026 at 08:41:59AM +0200, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> I'm not sure I understand why we care that we hardcode that Oid8 is the
>> same as uint64. It's never been a problem that Oid is the same as uin32 ...
>
> For me, the reason is greppability of oid8 information as the
> variables printed in the strings may not refer to variables declared
> in the code.
I don't understand what this means. Do you mean you want to grep for
where an oid8 value is being printed? I mean, that just won't work. We
don't accommodate that in the code for anything else in place of "oid8".
I think the symbol OID8_FORMAT should be purged from the code. Its
presence is just going to cause confusion, with people using it in
incorrect ways, and inviting more XXX_FORMAT symbols to be added. We
have just been working on getting rid of these after all.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Burd | 2026-09-14 19:02:33 | Re: Trying out <stdatomic.h> |
| Previous Message | Ayush Tiwari | 2026-09-14 18:52:58 | [Bug] Possible io_uring FD leak across crash recovery |