Re: Fix pgstatindex using for large indexes - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: Fix pgstatindex using for large indexes
Date
Msg-id 20080321024110.GA13594@alvh.no-ip.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Fix pgstatindex using for large indexes  (Tatsuhito Kasahara <kasahara.tatsuhito@oss.ntt.co.jp>)
Responses Re: Fix pgstatindex using for large indexes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Tatsuhito Kasahara wrote:
> Tatsuhito Kasahara wrote:
> > I fix the patch.
> Oops, I forgot to attach the patch for pgstattuple.sql.
> I send it again.

Hmm, this followup patch is wrong though -- the SQL definition is still
using BIGINT where it should be using double.  And the other changes to
use BIGINT where the original values were int4 seem unnecessary.

One thing I'm not clear about is the change from %d to %u to represent
int4 values.  Since the SQL datatype is signed, this can't really work,
now, can it?

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Show INHERIT in \du
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix pgstatindex using for large indexes