On Sun, 28 Jul 2024 at 16:30, Joseph Koshakow <kosh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Attached is an updated patch with your approach. I removed the 0 from > the negative case because I think it was unnecessary, but happy to add > it back in if I missed something.
I made a few adjustments and pushed this. I did keep the 0 - part as some compilers don't seem to like not having the 0. e.g MSVC gives: ../src/backend/utils/adt/dbsize.c(578): warning C4146: unary minus operator applied to unsigned type, result still unsigned I thought a bit about if it was really worth keeping the regression test or not and in the end decided it was likely worthwhile keeping it, so I expanded it slightly to cover both PG_INT64_MIN and PG_INT64_MAX values. It looks slightly less like we're earmarking the fact that there was a bug that way, and also seems to be of some additional value. PG15 did see quite a significant rewrite of the pg_size_pretty code. The bug does still exist in PG14 and earlier, but on looking at what it would take to fix it there I got a bit unexcited at the risk to reward ratio of adjusting that code and just left it alone. I've backpatched only as far as PG15. I'm sure someone else will feel I should have done something else there, but that's the judgement call I made. Thanks for the patch. David
