On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 12:47 PM James Coleman <jtc...@gmail.com> wrote: > But wouldn't that mean we'd get int on 32-bit systems, and since we're > accumulating data we could go over that value in both memory and disk? > > My assumption is that it's preferable to have the "this run value" and > the "total used across multiple runs" and both of those for disk and > memory to be the same. In that case it seems we want to guarantee > 64-bits.
I agree. There seems to be little reason to accommodate platform level conventions, beyond making sure that everything works on less popular or obsolete platforms. I suppose that it's a little idiosyncratic to use int64 like this. But it makes sense, and isn't nearly as ugly as the long thing, so I don't think that it should really matter. -- Peter Geoghegan
