Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:13:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Also, %zd is the wrong format code for int64. Recommended practice
>> these days is to use "%lld" with an explicit cast of the printf argument
>> to long long (just to be sure). That doesn't work safely before v12,
>> and if you did insist on back-patching further, you'd need to jump
>> through hoops to avoid having platform-specific format codes in a
>> translatable string. (The side-effects for translation seem like
>> an independent argument against back-patching.)
> Surely you meant INT64_FORMAT here?
No, because that varies depending on platform, so using it in a
translatable string is a bad idea. See e.g. 6a1cd8b92.
> Anyway, looking at the patch,
> couldn't we just use uint64?
Yeah, I was wondering if those counters shouldn't be unsigned, too.
Probably doesn't matter once we widen them to 64 bits though.
regards, tom lane
