Re: INT64_FORMAT in translatable strings - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: INT64_FORMAT in translatable strings
Date
Msg-id YIFUs9vWoI4IOKIn@paquier.xyz
Whole thread Raw
In response to INT64_FORMAT in translatable strings  (Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota.ntt@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 08:00:00PM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> Anyway we can rely on %lld/%llu and we decided to use them in
> translatable strings.  So the attached fixes (AFAICS) all instances of
> the macros in translatable strings.

Indeed, good catch.  Thanks.

> # I just found 3286065651 did one instance of that so I excluded that
> # from this patch.

May I ask why you are using "unsigned long long int" rather uint64?
What you are proposing is more consistent with what's done in the
signed case like 3286065, so no objections from me, but I was just
wondering.  Personally, I think that I would just use "unsigned long
long", like in xlogreader.c or pg_controldata.c to take two examples.
--
Michael

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: ALTER TABLE .. DETACH PARTITION CONCURRENTLY
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Replication slot stats misgivings