Hi, Attached is a self-sufficient patch extracted from a larger patchset [1]. The entire patchset probably will not proceed further in the nearest future. Since there was interest in this particular patch it deserves being discussed in a separate thread.
Currently we support 32-bit integer values in GUCs, but don't support 64-bit ones. The proposed patch adds this support. Firstly, it adds DefineCustomInt64Variable() which can be used by the extension authors. Secondly, the following core GUCs are made 64-bit: ``` autovacuum_freeze_min_age autovacuum_freeze_max_age autovacuum_freeze_table_age autovacuum_multixact_freeze_min_age autovacuum_multixact_freeze_max_age autovacuum_multixact_freeze_table_age ``` I see several open questions with the patch in its current state. Firstly, I'm not sure if it is beneficial to affect the named GUCs out of the context of the larger patchset. Perhaps we have better GUCs that could benefit from being 64-bit? Or should we just leave alone the core GUCs and focus on providing DefineCustomInt64Variable() ? Secondly, DefineCustomInt64Variable() is not test-covered. Turned out it was not even defined (although declared) in the original patch. This was fixed in the attached version. Maybe one of the test modules could use it even if it makes little sense for this particular module? For instance, test/modules/worker_spi/ could use it for worker_spi.naptime. Last but not least, large values like 12345678912345 could be difficult to read. Perhaps we should also support 12_345_678_912_345 syntax? This is not implemented in the attached patch and arguably could be discussed separately when and if we merge it. Thoughts? [1]: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CAJ7c6TP9Ce021ebJ%3D5zOhMjiG3Wqg4hO6Mg0WsccErvAD9vZYA%40mail.gmail.com -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
v1-0001-Support-64-bit-integer-GUCs.patch
Description: Binary data
