Re: ssize_t vs win64

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: ssize_t vs win64
Date: 2010-01-02 23:40:07
Message-ID: 201001022340.o02Ne7K15965@momjian.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 00:20, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> >> Seems kind of buggy. They shouldn't be defining it at all.
>
> > Why not? Should they just stop using it? In that case, so should we, no?
>
> What's buggy is M$ failing to provide it in their <sys/types.h> header.
> It's unlikely they'll pay any attention to our opinions, however.
>
> I think the Python guys are up against the same problem as us, namely
> substituting for the platform's failure to define the type.

I am unclear if accepting what Python chose as a default is the right
route vs. doing more research.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2010-01-02 23:45:19 Re: ssize_t vs win64
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-02 23:36:20 Re: ssize_t vs win64