Horton

Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code

James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2020-07-31T14:02:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 10:12 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2020 at 07:47, James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Patch using int64 attached.
>
> I added this to the open items list for PG13.
>
> David

I'd previously attached a patch [1], and there seemed to be agreement
it was reasonable (lightly so, but I also didn't see any
disagreement); would someone be able to either commit the change or
provide some additional feedback?

Thanks,
James

[1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAAaqYe_Y5zwCTFCJeso7p34yJgf4khR8EaKeJtGd%3DQPudOad6A%40mail.gmail.com

Commits

  1. Use int64 instead of long in incremental sort code