On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > I'm not a huge fan of moving directly to INT_MAX. Are we confident that > everything can handle that cleanly..? I feel like it might be a bit > safer to shy a bit short of INT_MAX (say, by 1K).
Maybe it would be better to stick with INT_MAX and fix any bugs we find. If there are magic numbers short of INT_MAX that cause problems, it would likely be better to find out about those problems and adjust the relevant code, rather than trying to dodge them. We'll have to confront all of those problems eventually as we come to support larger and larger sorts; I don't see much value in putting it off. Especially since we're early in the release cycle. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
