Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code

On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 1:36 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 9:13 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I noticed the incremental sort code makes use of the long datatype a
> > few times, e.g in TuplesortInstrumentation and
> > IncrementalSortGroupInfo.
>
> I agree that long is terrible, and should generally be avoided.
>
> > Maybe Size would be better for the in-memory fields and uint64 for the
> > on-disk fields?
>
> FWIW we have to use int64 for the in-memory tuplesort.c fields. This
> is because it must be possible for the fields to have negative values
> in the context of tuplesort. If there is going to be a general rule
> for in-memory fields, then ISTM that it'll have to be "use int64".
>
> logtape.c uses long for on-disk fields. It also relies on negative
> values, albeit to a fairly limited degree (it uses -1 as a magic
> value).

Do you think it's reasonable to use int64 across the board for memory
and disk space numbers then? If so, I can update the patch.

James