On 12.08.24 23:35, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 4:09 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>> On 08.08.24 01:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Aug 8, 2024, at 5:05, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:52 PM Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org> wrote:
>>>>> It looks like the commit I'm talking about here is a subset of v55-0001
>>>>> from that thread?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, looks like this.
>>>>
>>>>> So why is some of this being committed now into v17?
>>>>> But as I wrote above, I think this approach is a bad idea.
>>>>
>>>> OK, I agree that might look annoying. So, it's better to revert now.
>>>> Michael, what do you think?
>>>
>>> The argument is two-fold here. The point of this change is that we were forcibly doing a cast to int with int64
valuesreturned, so this commit limits the risks of missing paths in the future, while being consistent with all the
SLRUcode marking segment numbers with int64 for short *and* long segment file names.
>>
>> No, this is not what *this* patch does. (I suppose some of the related
>> patches might be doing that.) This patch just casts a few things that
>> are int to unsigned long long int before printing them.
>
> As pointed by Noah Misch [1], unlike the commit the patch [2] also
> changed segment-returning functions to return int64. Thus, in the
> patch output formats make much more sense, because they match the
> input data types. Michael, are you intended to push the remaining
> part of the patch [2]?
>
> Links
> 1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20240810175055.cd.nmisch%40google.com
> 2. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/ZqGvzSbW5TGKqZcE%40paquier.xyz
Ah yes, it makes sense together with [2].
