| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem |
| Date: | 2001-08-14 19:54:42 |
| Message-ID: | 19902.997818882@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> What I'm asking myself all the time is "which platforms do we
> support that doesn't have 8-byte integers?". Could someone
> enlighten me please?
Release a version that doesn't work without 8-byte ints, and I'm sure
we'll find out soon enough ;-). QNX and MIPS SysVR4 are documented
not to have int8 support in our "supported platforms" list, but we've
not heard from anyone still using 'em for awhile.
Basically, my feeling about it is that it's not ANSI C, and we shouldn't
yet be *requiring* C99 support to build Postgres.
> And what does int8 do on these platforms?
Acts like int4, except for taking up 8 bytes anyway (because pg_type
says so, not because sizeof() says so). See c.h.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-14 20:01:00 | Re: Forcing GiST index to be used |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2001-08-14 19:53:18 | Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem |