RE: Use of "long" in incremental sort code

Hi

>Found one more place needed to be changed(long -> int64).
>
>Also changed the output for int64 data(Debug mode on & define EXEC_SORTDEBUG )
>
>And, maybe there's a typo in " src\backend\executor\nodeIncrementalSort.c" as below.
>Obviously, the ">=" is meaningless, right?
>
>And, maybe there's a typo in " src\backend\executor\nodeIncrementalSort.c" as below.
>Obviously, the ">=" is meaningless, right?
>
>-        SO1_printf("Sorting presorted prefix tuplesort with >= %ld tuples\n", nTuples);
>+        SO1_printf("Sorting presorted prefix tuplesort with %ld tuples\n", nTuples);
>
>Please take a check at the attached patch file.

I have added it to commit fest.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2772/

Best regards
Tang

-----Original Message-----
From: Tang, Haiying <tanghy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> 
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:57 PM
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>; James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: Use of "long" in incremental sort code

Hi

Found one more place needed to be changed(long -> int64).

Also changed the output for int64 data(Debug mode on & define EXEC_SORTDEBUG )

And, maybe there's a typo in " src\backend\executor\nodeIncrementalSort.c" as below.
Obviously, the ">=" is meaningless, right?

-        SO1_printf("Sorting presorted prefix tuplesort with >= %ld tuples\n", nTuples);
+        SO1_printf("Sorting presorted prefix tuplesort with %ld tuples\n", nTuples);

Please take a check at the attached patch file.

Previous disscution:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAApHDvpky%2BUhof8mryPf5i%3D6e6fib2dxHqBrhp0Qhu0NeBhLJw%40mail.gmail.com

Best regards
Tang