Use std::numeric_limits<>

[siying]

Summary:
Right now we still don't fully use std::numeric_limits but use a macro, mainly for supporting VS 2013. Right now we only support VS 2017 and up so it is not a problem. The code comment claims that MinGW still needs it. We don't have a CI running MinGW so it's hard to validate. since we now require C++17, it's hard to imagine MinGW would still build RocksDB but doesn't support std::numeric_limits<>.

Test Plan: See CI Runs.

[facebook-github-bot]

@siying has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator.

[riversand963]

LGTM as long as all tests pass

[pdillinger]

I tend to prefer UINT32_MAX etc. for readability and minimal headers. They seem to be standard https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/integer, though I can't find SIZE_MAX as standard C++.

[siying]

I tend to prefer UINT32_MAX etc. for readability and minimal headers. They seem to be standard https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/types/integer, though I can't find SIZE_MAX as standard C++.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to think through the difference between the two, so I wouldn't make a switch in such a find & replace job. I think it's a good idea to separate the two into two PRs even if we decide to switch to macro. @ltamasi might have some comments on which one to use.