On Fri, Aug 9, 2024 at 4:09 PM Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote: > On 08.08.24 01:15, Michael Paquier wrote: > > > >> On Aug 8, 2024, at 5:05, Alexander Korotkov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 10:52 PM Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> > >> 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 ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov Supabase
