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

From ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker)
Subject Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes
Date
Msg-id 87o8aohlll.fsf@wibble.ilmari.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>)
Responses Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:

> On 2021-Jul-25, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
>> > BTW, one aspect of this that I'm unsure how to tackle is the
>> > common usage of "L" constants; in particular, "work_mem * 1024L"
>> > is a really common idiom that we'll need to get rid of.  Not sure
>> > that grep will be a useful aid for finding those.
>> >
>> I can see 30 matches in the head tree. (grep -d "1024L" *.c)
>
> grep grep '[0-9]L\>' -- *.[chyl]
> shows some more constants.

git grep -Eiw '(0x[0-9a-f]+|[0-9]+)U?LL?' -- *.[chyl]

gives about a hundred more hits.

We also have the (U)INT64CONST() macros, which are about about two
thirds as common as the U?LL? suffixes.

- ilmari



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Stephen Frost
Date:
Subject: Re: needless complexity in StartupXLOG
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Delegating superuser tasks to new security roles (Was: Granting control of SUSET gucs to non-superusers)