Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration
От | Peter Eisentraut |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 436d42e9-c59d-6eee-cd42-5902979a749f@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: Range checks of pg_test_fsync --secs-per-test and pg_test_timing --duration
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020-09-23 03:50, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 11:45:14PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> However, I still think the integer type use is a bit inconsistent. In both >> cases, using strtoul() and dealing with unsigned integer types between >> parsing and final use would be more consistent. > > No objections to that either, so changed this way. I kept those > variables signed because applying values of 2B~4B is not really going > to matter much here ;p This patch mixes up unsigned int and uint32 in random ways. The variable is uint32, but the format is %u and the max constant is UINT_MAX. I think just use unsigned int as the variable type. There is no need to use the bit-exact types. Note that the argument of alarm() is of type unsigned int. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: