Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs
Date
Msg-id 3649727.1727276882@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs  (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs
List pgsql-hackers
FWIW, I agree with the upthread opinions that we shouldn't do this
(invent int64 GUCs).  I don't think we need the added code bloat
and risk of breaking user code that isn't expecting this new GUC
type.  We invented the notion of GUC units in part to ensure that
int32 GUCs could be adapted to handle potentially-large numbers.
And there's always the fallback position of using a float8 GUC
if you really feel you need a wider range.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Aleksander Alekseev
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Support Int64 GUCs
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: XMLSerialize: version and explicit XML declaration