Hi
>Found one more place needed to be changed(long -> int64).
>
>Also changed the output for int64 data(Debug mode on & define EXEC_SORTDEBUG )
>
>And, maybe there's a typo in " src\backend\executor\nodeIncrementalSort.c" as
>below.
>Obviously, the ">=" is meaningless, right?
>
>And, maybe there's a typo in " src\backend\executor\nodeIncrementalSort.c" as
>below.
>Obviously, the ">=" is meaningless, right?
>
>- SO1_printf("Sorting presorted prefix tuplesort with >= %ld
>tuples\n", nTuples);
>+ SO1_printf("Sorting presorted prefix tuplesort with %ld
>tuples\n", nTuples);
>
>Please take a check at the attached patch file.
I have added it to commit fest.
https://commitfest.postgresql.org/30/2772/
Best regards
Tang
-----Original Message-----
From: Tang, Haiying <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 12:57 PM
To: David Rowley <[email protected]>; James Coleman <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Use of "long" in incremental sort code
Hi
Found one more place needed to be changed(long -> int64).
Also changed the output for int64 data(Debug mode on & define EXEC_SORTDEBUG )
And, maybe there's a typo in " src\backend\executor\nodeIncrementalSort.c" as
below.
Obviously, the ">=" is meaningless, right?
- SO1_printf("Sorting presorted prefix tuplesort with >= %ld
tuples\n", nTuples);
+ SO1_printf("Sorting presorted prefix tuplesort with %ld
tuples\n", nTuples);
Please take a check at the attached patch file.
Previous disscution:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAApHDvpky%2BUhof8mryPf5i%3D6e6fib2dxHqBrhp0Qhu0NeBhLJw%40mail.gmail.com
Best regards
Tang
