Horton

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

Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker <ilmari@ilmari.org>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: ilmari@ilmari.org (Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker )
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>
Cc: Ranier Vilela <ranier.vf@gmail.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, 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: 2021-07-26T20:21:58Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:

> On 2021-Jul-25, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
>> > BTW, one aspect of this that I'm unsure how to tackle is the
>> > common usage of "L" constants; in particular, "work_mem * 1024L"
>> > is a really common idiom that we'll need to get rid of.  Not sure
>> > that grep will be a useful aid for finding those.
>> >
>> I can see 30 matches in the head tree. (grep -d "1024L" *.c)
>
> grep grep '[0-9]L\>' -- *.[chyl]
> shows some more constants.

git grep -Eiw '(0x[0-9a-f]+|[0-9]+)U?LL?' -- *.[chyl]

gives about a hundred more hits.

We also have the (U)INT64CONST() macros, which are about about two
thirds as common as the U?LL? suffixes.

- ilmari

Commits

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