Re: [HACKERS] PostGreSQL v6.2.1 for Linux Alpha

From: Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: khollis(at)Gawain(dot)Houston-InterWeb(dot)COM (Kenji T(dot) Hollis)
Cc: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PostGreSQL v6.2.1 for Linux Alpha
Date: 1998-02-12 16:50:51
Message-ID: 199802121652.LAA27207@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

>
> Bruce:
>
> > Take a look at utils/hash/hashfn.c:tag_hash. Is there a problem in that
> > code for your platform. Is the hash getting set, or is it falling
> > through the case statements? This code is clearly broken for
> > sizeof(int) > 4, but I think your ints are 4, and longs are 8. I bet
> > somewhere we are using a long where we should be using an int, and that
> > is why only your platform is seeing it. Is this true about long vs.
> > int. I can review our use of longs to see if there are problems.
>
> I created a small program to return the size of values. They are:
>
> Size of short: 2
> Size of char: 1
> Size of int: 4
> Size of long: 8
>
> Does this help?

Yep. Does anyone else run OS's with the size of long greater than int?
Does Dec Unix Alpha? Are people running that?

--
Bruce Momjian
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 1998-02-12 16:51:21 Re: [HACKERS] PostGreSQL v6.2.1 for Linux Alpha
Previous Message Boersenspielteam 1998-02-12 15:41:45 Re: [HACKERS] Problem with the numbers I reported yesterday