On 2018-05-23 09:04:35 +1200, David Rowley wrote: > Thanks for pushing. > > On 23 May 2018 at 03:55, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Hm, so why is the correct rowcount returned --- are we running > > a separate counter for that purpose, and if so why? > > I thought the output I pasted was clearly showing it not to be the > same. 4299999999 vs 4300000000. > > Did I misunderstand you?
Well, the row-returned counter is obviously wide enough, otherwise 4299999999 couldn't be returned. Tom's point, as I understood it, is that we obviously have one wide enough counter - why can't we reuse that for the one you made wider. And it doesn't seem entirely trivial to do so, so your patch is easier. Greetings, Andres Freund
