From: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
To: Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>
Cc: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
Cc: pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix more holes with SLRU code in need of int64 for segment numbe
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 08:16:51 +0200
Message-ID: <fbd73d73-b0e4-4a9c-995b-b204a6bf7679@eisentraut.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPpHfduErkbMvdFk94AZTi4t55h-iTYRGfZ8k+9HFZFNpc+Jqw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7AD52B27-1F6A-4F1B-9420-8C11ADAC6343@paquier.xyz>
<e1260254-aba7-48e4-89db-98a001b97d71@eisentraut.org>
<CAPpHfduErkbMvdFk94AZTi4t55h-iTYRGfZ8k+9HFZFNpc+Jqw@mail.gmail.com>
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 values returned, so this commit limits the risks of missing paths in the future, while being consistent with all the SLRU code 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].
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-committers@postgresql.org
Cc: peter@eisentraut.org, aekorotkov@gmail.com, michael@paquier.xyz, pgsql-committers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pgsql: Fix more holes with SLRU code in need of int64 for segment numbe
In-Reply-To: <fbd73d73-b0e4-4a9c-995b-b204a6bf7679@eisentraut.org>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox