| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(at)vondra(dot)me>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos |
| Date: | 2024-12-04 21:50:05 |
| Message-ID: | 2401111.1733349005@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 5, 2024 at 10:20 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Another rather serious problem here is that we no longer provide
>> macro PG_INT64_TYPE, which seems rather likely to break applications
>> that were relying on it. That is part of our external API, we
>> can't just remove it on a whim.
> I had concluded that PG_INT64_TYPE wasn't part of our external API but
> pg_int64 was, based on the comment:
> /* Define a signed 64-bit integer type for use in client API declarations. */
> -typedef PG_INT64_TYPE pg_int64;
> +typedef int64_t pg_int64;
Oh, hmm, maybe so. OTOH, that typedef breaks the idea of #define'ing
PG_INT64_TYPE as int64_t. We need this header to be readable without
any prior system headers, so I'm afraid we're all the way back to
making configure derive the name of a 64-bit type.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2024-12-04 21:55:46 | Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos |
| Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-12-04 21:44:06 | Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos |