From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com |
Cc: | kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp, anzai(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: 64-bit API for large object |
Date: | 2012-09-30 01:07:30 |
Message-ID: | 20120930.100730.1159304632702304349.t-ishii@sraoss.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of jue sep 27 01:01:18 -0300 2012:
>
>> * I have a question. What is the meaning of INT64_IS_BUSTED?
>> It seems to me a marker to indicate a platform without 64bit support.
>> However, the commit 901be0fad4034c9cf8a3588fd6cf2ece82e4b8ce
>> says as follows:
>> | Remove all the special-case code for INT64_IS_BUSTED, per decision that
>> | we're not going to support that anymore.
>
> Yeah, I think we should just get rid of those bits. I don't remember
> seeing *any* complaint when INT64_IS_BUSTED was removed, which means
> nobody was using that code anyway.
Ok.
> Now there is one more problem in this area which is that the patch
> defined a new type pg_int64 for frontend code (postgres_ext.h). This
> seems a bad idea to me. We already have int64 defined in c.h. Should
> we expose int64 to postgres_ext.h somehow? Should we use standard-
> mandated int64_t instead? One way would be to have a new configure
> check for int64_t, and if that type doesn't exist, then just don't
> provide the 64 bit functionality to frontend.
This has been already explained in upthread:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-09/msg00447.php
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese: http://www.sraoss.co.jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tatsuo Ishii | 2012-09-30 02:38:17 | Re: 64-bit API for large object |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2012-09-30 00:07:48 | pgsql: Disable _FORTIFY_SOURCE with ICC |