On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Michael Paquier
<michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Still, it can't be worse than the status quo, where instead of int64
>> we're using int and int32, so maybe we ought to back-patch it as-is
>> for now and look at any further cleanup that is needed as a
>> master-only improvement.
>
> Yes. I don't like playing much with the variable types on
> back-branches, as long as the initial amount of bytes is large enough
> we will be safe for some time.
Note for the archives: the main issue has been fixed as a46fe6e8, and
the incorrect condition as 063ff921. Thanks Robert!
--
Michael
