At Sat, 28 Jan 2023 04:28:29 +0000, "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)" <osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com> wrote in > On Friday, January 27, 2023 8:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > So, you have changed min_apply_delay from int64 to int32, but you haven't > > mentioned the reason for the same? We use 'int' for the similar parameter > > recovery_min_apply_delay, so, ideally, it makes sense but still better to > > tell your > > reason explicitly. > Yes. It's because I thought I need to make this feature consistent with the > recovery_min_apply_delay. > This feature handles the range same as the recovery_min_apply delay from 0 to > INT_MAX now > so should be adjusted to match it.
INT_MAX can stick out of int32 on some platforms. (I'm not sure where that actually happens, though.) We can use PG_INT32_MAX instead. IMHO, I think we don't use int as a catalog column and I agree that int32 is sufficient since I don't think more than 49 days delay is practical. On the other hand, maybe I wouldn't want to use int32 for intermediate calculations. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
