Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Serguei Mokhov" <sa_mokho(at)alcor(dot)concordia(dot)ca>
Cc: "Jan Wieck" <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem
Date: 2001-08-14 15:28:28
Message-ID: 17812.997802908@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"Serguei Mokhov" <sa_mokho(at)alcor(dot)concordia(dot)ca> writes:
>> This would work, I think, but my goodness it's an ugly solution.

> Is anything wrong with just having two int32 per value for this case?

Well, we do want it to be int64 on machines where int64 is properly
defined. Or are you suggesting

#ifdef INT64_IS_BUSTED
int32 last_value;
int32 pad1;
#else
int64 last_value;
#endif

That does seem marginally more robust, now that you mention it...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2001-08-14 15:36:43 Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem
Previous Message Serguei Mokhov 2001-08-14 15:18:05 Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem