Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-05-23 09:04:35 +1200, David Rowley wrote:
>> I thought the output I pasted was clearly showing it not to be the
>> same. 4299999999 vs 4300000000.
> 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.
Right. Obviously there was a 64-bit counter someplace, but it wasn't
being used for this purpose.
I think after looking at the code that the cur_lineno counter is
counting input *lines* whereas the other thing counts finished *rows*,
so unifying them would be a bad idea anyway.
regards, tom lane
