"Qingqing Zhou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So is there any special reason we don't worry that convert an integer to > short will not lose data?
It's not possible for that to happen unless the user has set max_files_per_process to more than 32K, so I'm not particularly worried. Do you know of any platforms that would be unlikely to go belly-up with dozens or hundreds of PG backends each trying to use tens of thousands of open files? While I agree that storing this as int16 is micro-optimization, I don't see it as likely to be a problem in the foreseeable future. If it makes you feel better, we can constrain max_files_per_process to 32K in guc.c. > Maybe we make the assumption that all OS will > implement "fd" as an array index The POSIX spec requires open() to assign fd's consecutively from zero. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/open.html regards, tom lane ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
