From: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, 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 19:53:18 |
Message-ID: | 200108141953.f7EJrIg18005@jupiter.us.greatbridge.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > > And he who needs that kind of long term row identifiers would
> > > be better off with 8-byte sequences anyway - IMNSVHO.
> >
> > What I need is a way to pad the struct declaration so that it leaves
> > 8 bytes per int64 column, no matter what. I thought of
> >
> > This would work, I think, but my goodness it's an ugly solution.
> > Has any hacker got a better one?
>
> The only thing I could think of is using a struct to hide the
> padding details instead of directly using int64, but then you'd have to
> add a '.value' or something to the references. I'm not sure that's really
> any cleaner.
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?
And what does int8 do on these platforms?
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-14 19:54:42 | Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem |
Previous Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-08-14 18:40:41 | Re: To be 7.1.3 or not to be 7.1.3? |