On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 08:13:08PM -0400, Andres Freund wrote:
> FWIW, I find it utterly unsurpising that new users of %llu were introduced
> after 15a79c73111f. For one, 15a79c73111f explicitly says "(minimal trial)" in
> the subject line, it'd have hardly been sensible to introduce PRI* uses at
>
Hi,
On 2025-06-09 12:59:20 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> While hacking a different patch, I've noticed that a couple of %llu
> did not get the PRIu64 call in the AIO code, and I don't see why we
> could not switch them. These have been introduced in commits that got
> into the tree after Peter'
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 09:56:28AM -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 07:16:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> Thanks for the review. Adding the RMT in CC for more comments. Would
>> you be OK with the patch added to v18? The answer is probably yes,
>> but let's ask anyway
On Thu, Jun 12, 2025 at 07:16:37AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 09:58:00AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 09.06.25 05:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
>>> That's not necessarily mandatory for v18, for sure, but as this is new
>>> code we could as well clean it up before f
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 09:58:00AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 09.06.25 05:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> That's not necessarily mandatory for v18, for sure, but as this is new
>> code we could as well clean it up before forking the next stable
>> branch.
>
> Agree this should go into v18.
On 09.06.25 05:59, Michael Paquier wrote:
While hacking a different patch, I've noticed that a couple of %llu
did not get the PRIu64 call in the AIO code, and I don't see why we
could not switch them. These have been introduced in commits that got
into the tree after Peter's 15a79c73111f.
Look
