Re: perl checking

From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com
Cc: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: perl checking
Date: 2018-05-23 03:39:57
Message-ID: 20180523.123957.64315921.horiguchi.kyotaro@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

At Tue, 22 May 2018 15:02:46 -0400, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote in <a70c49ec-d816-9fd6-1565-38fb20cc7206(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>
> > - elsif ($in < 0x100000000)
> > + elsif ($in <= 0xffffffff)

This is one of my thougts and the reason for regarding it sour is
the following.

> > For consistency, the other arms of the "if" should be adjusted
> > similarly.

> Yeah. I tested this on the oldest 32 but perls I could find, the msys
> and activestate perls on the XP machine that runs frogmouth and
> friends. Even though they both have an ivsize of 4, the arithmetic
> seems to work properly. Perhaps they store larger numbers as doubles,
> which you should be able to do exactly up to about 52 bit
> integers. The other 32 bit machine I have is an Ubuntu 16.04 VM, but
> there the perl has an ivsize of 8, so of course it does the right
> thing.
>
> We don't normally use these scripts anyway, so I'll go with this
> suggestion without further investigation.

Agreed. I'm fine with the direction.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Sand Stone 2018-05-23 04:10:02 Re: dsa_allocate() faliure
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-05-23 03:31:08 Re: Postgres 11 release notes