Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:32 AM Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote:
>> The patch has been floating around for a very long time, so I don't
>> remember exactly why I chose a signed value. Sorry.
> I am reminded of the fact that int64 is used to size buffers within
> tuplesort.c, because it needs to support negative availMem sizes --
> when huge allocations were first supported, tuplesort.c briefly used
> "Size", which didn't work. Perhaps it had something to do with that.
I wonder if we should make that use ssize_t instead. Probably
not worth the trouble.
regards, tom lane
