On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 12:08:46AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > After a few minutes' thought, how about: > > Assert((uint64) blocknum + (uint64) nblocks <= (uint64) mdnblocks(reln, > forknum)); > > This'd stop being helpful if we ever widen BlockNumber to 64 bits, > but I think that's unlikely. (Partitioning seems like a better answer > for giant tables.)
No idea if this will happen or not, but that's not the only area where we are going to need a native uint128 implementation to control the overflows with uint64. What you are suggesting is good enough for me, so I've applied on HEAD a version using that. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
