On 2019-Apr-30, David Rowley wrote: > On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 06:28, Peter Geoghegan <p...@bowt.ie> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:20 AM Alvaro Herrera > > <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > Agreed. Here's a patch. I see downthread that you also discovered the > > > same mistake in _h_indexbuild by grepping for "long"; I got to it by > > > examining callers of pgstat_progress_update_param and > > > pgstat_progress_update_multi_param. I didn't find any other mistakes of > > > the same ilk. Some codesites use "double" instead of "int64", but those > > > are not broken. > > > > This seems fine, though FWIW I probably would have gone with int64 > > instead of uint64. There is generally no downside to using int64, and > > being to support negative integers can be useful in some contexts > > (though not this context). > > CopyFrom() returns uint64. I think it's better to be consistent in the > types we use to count tuples in commands.
That's not a bad argument ... but I still committed it as int64, mostly because that's what pgstat_progress_update_param takes. Anyway, these are just local variables, not return values, so it's easily changeable if we determine (??) that unsigned is better. I don't know if anybody plans to do progress report for COPY, but I hope we don't find ourselves in a problem when some user claims that they are inserting more than 2^63 but less than 2^64 tuples. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
