Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Date
Msg-id 5047be8c-7ee6-4dd5-af76-6c916c3103b4@iki.fi
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?  (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
List pgsql-hackers
On 26/09/2023 07:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 24, 2023 at 10:42:49AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Indeed, or Windows decides that making long 8-byte is wiser, but I
>> doubt that's ever going to happen on backward-compatibility ground.
> 
> While looking more at that, I've noticed that I missed BufFileAppend()
> and BufFileSeekBlock(), that themselves rely on long.  The other code
> paths calling these two routines rely on BlockNumber (aka uint32), so
> that seems to be the bottom of it.

BufFileTellBlock should be adjusted too. Or removed altogether; it's 
been commented out since year 2000. Other than that, looks good to me.

-- 
Heikki Linnakangas
Neon (https://neon.tech)




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bharath Rupireddy
Date:
Subject: Re: retire MemoryContextResetAndDeleteChildren backwards compatibility macro
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: psql not responding to SIGINT upon db reconnection