On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 10:26 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 04, 2019 at 12:36:01AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > So ... why exactly did this patch define
> > MemoryContextData.mem_allocated
> > as int64? That seems to me to be doubly wrong: it is not the right
> > width
> > on 32-bit machines, and it is not the right signedness anywhere. I
> > think
> > that field ought to be of type Size (a/k/a size_t, but memnodes.h
> > always
> > calls it Size).
> >
>
> Yeah, I think that's an oversight. Maybe there's a reason why Jeff
> used
> int64, but I can't think of any.
I had chosen a 64-bit value to account for the situation Tom mentioned:
that, in theory, Size might not be large enough to represent all
allocations in a memory context. Apparently, that theoretical situation
is not worth being concerned about.
The patch has been floating around for a very long time, so I don't
remember exactly why I chose a signed value. Sorry.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
