Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> writes:
> On Fri, 2019-10-04 at 10:26 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> Yeah, I think that's an oversight. Maybe there's a reason why Jeff
>> used int64, but I can't think of any.
> I had chosen a 64-bit value to account for the situation Tom mentioned:
> that, in theory, Size might not be large enough to represent all
> allocations in a memory context. Apparently, that theoretical situation
> is not worth being concerned about.
Well, you could also argue it the other way: maybe in our children's
time, int64 won't be as wide as Size. (Yeah, I know that sounds
ridiculous, but needing pointers wider than 32 bits was a ridiculous
idea too when I started in this business.)
The committed fix seems OK to me except that I think you should've
also changed MemoryContextMemAllocated() to return Size.
regards, tom lane
