At Mon, 30 Jan 2023 08:51:05 +0530, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote in > On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 8:32 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > At Sat, 28 Jan 2023 04:28:29 +0000, "Takamichi Osumi (Fujitsu)" > > <osumi.takami...@fujitsu.com> wrote in > > > On Friday, January 27, 2023 8:00 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > So, you have changed min_apply_delay from int64 to int32, but you > > > > haven't > > > > mentioned the reason for the same? We use 'int' for the similar > > > > parameter > > > > recovery_min_apply_delay, so, ideally, it makes sense but still better > > > > to tell your > > > > reason explicitly. > > > Yes. It's because I thought I need to make this feature consistent with > > > the recovery_min_apply_delay. > > > This feature handles the range same as the recovery_min_apply delay from > > > 0 to INT_MAX now > > > so should be adjusted to match it. > > > > INT_MAX can stick out of int32 on some platforms. (I'm not sure where > > that actually happens, though.) We can use PG_INT32_MAX instead. > > > > But in other integer GUCs including recovery_min_apply_delay, we use > INT_MAX, so not sure if it is a good idea to do something different > here.
The GUC is not stored in a catalog, but.. oh... it is multiplied by 1000. So if it is larger than (INT_MAX / 1000), it overflows... If we officially accept that (I don't think great) behavior (even only for impractical values), I don't object further. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
