| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers List <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Patches applied; initdb time! |
| Date: | 2002-04-21 21:33:16 |
| Message-ID: | 26975.1019424796@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart <thomas(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> I'm still not sure why the INT64CONST conflict does not show up as a
> warning on my machine, but looking at the code I'm not sure why we would
> ever have had two versions in the first place. Anyone want to take
> responsibility for consolidating it into The Right Place? If not, I'll
> go ahead and do it...
I think it was originally needed only for the CRC code, so we put it
there to begin with. Clearly should be in a more widely used place now.
Do you have any opinion whether c.h or int8.h is the Right Place?
I'm still dithering about that.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joe Conway | 2002-04-21 21:37:18 | Re: Patches applied; initdb time! |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-21 21:25:40 | Re: Patches applied; initdb time! |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2002-04-21 21:37:03 | pgsql/src/backend commands/variable.c parser/g ... |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-21 21:25:40 | Re: Patches applied; initdb time! |