On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 9:31 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Still, it can't be worse than the status quo, where instead of int64 >> we're using int and int32, so maybe we ought to back-patch it as-is >> for now and look at any further cleanup that is needed as a >> master-only improvement. > > Yes. I don't like playing much with the variable types on > back-branches, as long as the initial amount of bytes is large enough > we will be safe for some time.
Note for the archives: the main issue has been fixed as a46fe6e8, and the incorrect condition as 063ff921. Thanks Robert! -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers