On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:32 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
<horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> At Sat, 28 Jan 2023 04:28:29 +0000, "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)" <osumi.takamichi@fujitsu.com> wrote in
> > On Friday, January 27, 2023 8:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > So, you have changed min_apply_delay from int64 to int32, but you haven't
> > > mentioned the reason for the same? We use 'int' for the similar parameter
> > > recovery_min_apply_delay, so, ideally, it makes sense but still better to tell your
> > > reason explicitly.
> > Yes. It's because I thought I need to make this feature consistent with the recovery_min_apply_delay.
> > This feature handles the range same as the recovery_min_apply delay from 0 to INT_MAX now
> > so should be adjusted to match it.
>
> INT_MAX can stick out of int32 on some platforms. (I'm not sure where
> that actually happens, though.) We can use PG_INT32_MAX instead.
>
But in other integer GUCs including recovery_min_apply_delay, we use
INT_MAX, so not sure if it is a good idea to do something different
here.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.