Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes
Date
Msg-id 214170.1627331225@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes  (ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker))
Responses Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes:
> We also have the (U)INT64CONST() macros, which are about about two
> thirds as common as the U?LL? suffixes.

Yeah.  Ideally we'd forbid direct use of the suffixes and insist
you go through those macros, but I don't know of any way that
we could enforce such a coding rule, short of grepping the tree
periodically.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Mark Dilger
Date:
Subject: Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers)
Next
From: "Bossart, Nathan"
Date:
Subject: Re: log_checkpoint's "WAL file(s) added" is misleading to the point of uselessness