Horton

Re: Use of "long" in incremental sort code

David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
To: James Coleman <jtc331@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: 2020-08-02T02:26:25Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Sat, 1 Aug 2020 at 02:02, James Coleman <jtc331@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

It looks fine to me. Pushed.

David

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

Commits

  1. Use int64 instead of long in incremental sort code