Horton

Re: Removing "long int"-related limit on hash table sizes

Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker )
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql@j-davis.com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2021-07-26T20:27:05Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari =?utf-8?Q?Manns=C3=A5ker?=) writes:
> We also have the (U)INT64CONST() macros, which are about about two
> thirds as common as the U?LL? suffixes.

Yeah.  Ideally we'd forbid direct use of the suffixes and insist
you go through those macros, but I don't know of any way that
we could enforce such a coding rule, short of grepping the tree
periodically.

			regards, tom lane

Commits

  1. Get rid of artificial restriction on hash table sizes on Windows.