Peter Geoghegan <pg@xxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 10:11 AM Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> What I'm wondering about is whether it's worth putting in a solution >> for this issue in isolation, or whether we ought to embark on the >> long-ignored project of getting rid of use of "long" for any >> memory-size-related computations. There would be no chance of >> back-patching something like the latter into v13, though. > By requiring int64 be used instead of long, we don't actually increase > risk for non-Windows platforms to any significant degree. I'm pretty > sure that "long" means int64 on non-Windows 64-bit platforms anyway. Well, what we really ought to be using is size_t (a/k/a Size), at least for memory-space-related calculations. I don't have an opinion right now about what logtape.c ought to use. I do agree that avoiding "long" altogether would be a good ultimate goal. In the short term though, the question is whether we want to regard this hashagg issue as something we need a fix for in v13/v14. The fact that it's Windows-only makes it slightly less pressing in my mind, but it's still a regression that some people are going to hit. regards, tom lane
