On 2018-05-23 09:04:35 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> Thanks for pushing.
>
> On 23 May 2018 at 03:55, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > Hm, so why is the correct rowcount returned --- are we running
> > a separate counter for that purpose, and if so why?
>
> I thought the output I pasted was clearly showing it not to be the
> same. 4299999999 vs 4300000000.
>
> Did I misunderstand you?
Well, the row-returned counter is obviously wide enough, otherwise
4299999999 couldn't be returned. Tom's point, as I understood it, is
that we obviously have one wide enough counter - why can't we reuse that
for the one you made wider. And it doesn't seem entirely trivial to do
so, so your patch is easier.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
