Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > On 2018-05-23 09:04:35 +1200, David Rowley wrote: >> I thought the output I pasted was clearly showing it not to be the >> same. 4299999999 vs 4300000000.
> Well, the row-returned counter is obviously wide enough, otherwise > 4299999999 couldn't be returned. Tom's point, as I understood it, is > that we obviously have one wide enough counter - why can't we reuse that > for the one you made wider. And it doesn't seem entirely trivial to do > so, so your patch is easier. Right. Obviously there was a 64-bit counter someplace, but it wasn't being used for this purpose. I think after looking at the code that the cur_lineno counter is counting input *lines* whereas the other thing counts finished *rows*, so unifying them would be a bad idea anyway. regards, tom lane