пн, 21 мар. 2022 г. в 16:11, Pavel Borisov <pashkin.e...@gmail.com>:
> Afaics offset etc can't be negative, so I don't think this really improves >> matters. I think there's quite a few other places where we use %u to print >> integers that we know aren't negative. >> >> If anything I think we should change the signed integers to unsigned >> ones. It >> might be worth doing that as part of >> >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJ7c6TPDOYBYrnCAeyndkBktO0WG2xSdYduTF0nxq%2BvfkmTF5Q%40mail.gmail.com > > > That was one of my intentions in the mentioned patch, but I couldn't > confirm that the page number (and offset) in SLRU was used signed not by > purpose. Thank you for confirming this. I will try to replace int to > unsigned where it is relevant in SLRU as part of the mentioned thread. > Though it could be a big change worth a separate patch maybe. > > In the patchset where we're working on making SLRU 64bit [1] we have come to agreement that: - signed to unsigned change in SLRU *page* numbering is not needed as maximum SLRU page number is guaranteed to be much more than 2 times less than maximum 64-bit XID. - change of *offset* from int format to the wider one is not needed at all as multiple of SLRU_PAGES_PER_SEGMENT and CLOG_XACTS_PER_PAGE (and similar for commit_ts and mxact) is far less than 2^32 [2] So the change to printing offset as signed, from this thread, is not going to be included into SLRU 64-bit thread [1]. It's true that offset can not be negative, but printing int value as %u isn't nice even if it is not supposed to be negative. So I'd propose the small patch in this thread be applied separately if none has anything against it. [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALT9ZEEf1uywYN%2BVaRuSwNMGE5%3DeFOy7ZTwtP2g%2BW9oJDszqQw%40mail.gmail.com [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20220325.120718.758699124869814269.horikyota.ntt%40gmail.com -- Best regards, Pavel Borisov Postgres Professional: http://postgrespro.com <http://www.postgrespro.com>
