Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code
От | Peter Geoghegan |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAH2-WznYKm_KO8NVCoAtPYxx-t9e4ir6R8=uMFxsFn+Hz8fzdA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code (James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 10:53 AM James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote: > Do you think it's reasonable to use int64 across the board for memory > and disk space numbers then? If so, I can update the patch. Using int64 as a replacement for long is the safest general strategy, and so ISTM that it might be worth doing that even in cases where it isn't clearly necessary. After all, any code that uses long must have been written with the assumption that that was the same thing as int64, at least on most platforms. There is nothing wrong with using Size/size_t, and doing so is often slightly clearer. But it's no drop-in replacement for long. -- Peter Geoghegan
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: