Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes

On 2021-Jul-26, Tom Lane wrote:

> ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes:
> > We also have the (U)INT64CONST() macros, which are about about two
> > thirds as common as the U?LL? suffixes.
> 
> Yeah.  Ideally we'd forbid direct use of the suffixes and insist
> you go through those macros, but I don't know of any way that
> we could enforce such a coding rule, short of grepping the tree
> periodically.

IIRC we have one buildfarm member that warns us about perlcritic; maybe
this is just another setup of that sort.

(Personally I run the perlcritic check in my local commit-verifying
script before pushing.)

-- 
Álvaro Herrera         PostgreSQL Developer  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
"XML!" Exclaimed C++.  "What are you doing here? You're not a programming
language."
"Tell that to the people who use me," said XML.
https://burningbird.net/the-parable-of-the-languages/