On 2020-Jan-31, 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,
Michael Paquier 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
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 05:13:53PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> +1 for widening these counters, but since they're global variables, -0.2
> or so for back-patching. I don't know of any reason that an extension
> would be touching these, but I feel like the problem isn't severe enough
> to justify takin
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> We recently noticed that vacuum buffer counters wraparound in extreme
> cases, with ridiculous results.
Ugh.
> I propose to backpatch this.
+1 for widening these counters, but since they're global variables, -0.2
or so for back-patching. I don't know of any reason that
On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 9:59 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
> We recently noticed that vacuum buffer counters wraparound in extreme
> cases, with ridiculous results. Example:
>
> 2020-01-06 16:38:38.010 EST [45625-1] app= LOG: automatic vacuum of table
> "somtab.sf.foobar": index scans: 17
>
We recently noticed that vacuum buffer counters wraparound in extreme
cases, with ridiculous results. Example:
2020-01-06 16:38:38.010 EST [45625-1] app= LOG: automatic vacuum of table
"somtab.sf.foobar": index scans: 17
pages: 0 removed, 207650641 remain, 0 skipped due to pins, 1341940
