At Fri, 23 Apr 2021 13:26:09 +0900, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote in > 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.
Yes. it uses redundant "int" for "long". > > - (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! Thanks! -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
