Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Gierth
Subject Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX
Date
Msg-id 87619q6ouh.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX  (Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com>)
Responses Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX  (Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
>>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@ymail.com> writes:
>> I didn't replace the 0xFFFFFFFF ones because most or all of them>> looked like basically bit-masking operations
ratherthan actually>> dealing with the bounds of an unsigned int or uint32. I was>> specifically looking for places
whereliterals were being used to>> represent maximum or minimum values.
 
Kevin> Well, InvalidSerCommitSeqNo was initially defined to beKevin> UINT64_MAX -- but some buildfarm members didn't
knowabout thatKevin> so it was changed to UINT64CONST(0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF).  It isKevin> very much about wanting the
maximumvalue for uint64.
 

That one _is_ changed to UINT64_MAX in my patch.

-- 
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Gierth
Date:
Subject: Re: Exposing PG_VERSION_NUM in pg_config
Next
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: parallel mode and parallel contexts