On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 09:43:09AM +0900, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote: > At Thu, 22 Apr 2021 09:29:46 -0400, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in >> But what I thought Michael was griping about is the use of "int", >> which is a noise word here. Either "long long int" or "long long" >> will work, but I think we've preferred the latter because shorter.
Yep, that's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. > Yeah, there's no reason for the "int" other than just following the > immediate preceding commit 3286065651. I also prefer the shorter > notations. Attached. Note that 3286065 only worked on signed integers. > - (uint32) (prefetcher->reader->EndRecPtr > << 32), > - (uint32) > (prefetcher->reader->EndRecPtr), > [..] > + > LSN_FORMAT_ARGS(prefetcher->reader->EndRecPtr), Good catch here. LSN_FORMAT_ARGS() exists to prevent such errors. And applied. Thanks! -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
