Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Date
Msg-id ZRJax7xO-zHSNRbd@paquier.xyz
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
Tree view 
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.

For now, I have registered this patch to the next CF:
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/45/4589/

Comments are welcome.
--
Michael
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_upgrade and logical replication
Next
From: Markur Sens
Date:
Subject: How are jsonb_path_query SRFs $.datetime() defined ?