On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 04:27:55AM +0000, Bertrand Drouvot wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2026 at 11:11:06AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: >> Relying on long here is not reliable on WIN32, where the value could >> overflow for long wait times (where sizeof(long) == 4). I'd suggest a >> int64 or a uint64 instead for the API to be able to store wait times >> in usecs longer than the overflow threshold. That was another design >> oversight. My oversight here (aka I want to abolish completely the >> use of long in the core code; it leads to insanity). > > That makes sense and the lock time that would produce the overflow is > realistic > (about 35 minutes) if my math is correct.
Dealing with the "long" change, I have arrived at the conclusion that using int64 or even uint64 felt stupid because we already use a cast to PgStat_Counter in pgstat_count_lock_waits(), and some other stats just use PgStat_Counter when reporting usec times. So I have just switched the code to use PgStat_Counter. >> The counter is stored in usecs, displayed in msecs. Documenting it as >> stored in msecs is incorrect, no? > > Yeah, so this change. I need to re-learn how to read. And backpatched down to v19, catversion bump oblige. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
