Re: LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com>
Cc: Claudio Natoli <claudio(dot)natoli(at)memetrics(dot)com>, "''''pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org' ' ' '" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question
Date: 2004-01-13 16:47:05
Message-ID: 12188.1074012425@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> writes:
> What are the chances for Win64 support? sizeof(unsigned long) remains 4,
> sizeof(void*) is 8.

If you can tell me what type Datum should be (unsigned long long
maybe?), we could probably handle that. It was a pretty brain-dead
combination of choices on Microsoft's part though ... offhand I can
think of no other platform where pointer and long are not the same
size. There are probably a few other places besides the Datum typedef
that will need adjustment for this, but I can't think of any showstoppers.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Maxim Kovgan 2004-01-13 16:57:41 where shall i send my he.po file
Previous Message Manfred Spraul 2004-01-13 16:38:51 Re: LWLock/ShmemIndex startup question