Re: ECPG SQLDA support

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Michael Meskes <meskes(at)postgresql(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Hans-Juergen Schoenig <hs(at)cybertec(dot)at>
Subject: Re: ECPG SQLDA support
Date: 2010-01-04 19:32:56
Message-ID: 307.1262633576@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I'm not sure how portable is the LONG_BIT business.

I think checking SIZEOF_LONG would be preferred, since that's what
we use elsewhere. Although actually I wonder why this code exists
at all --- wouldn't it be easier to make these depend on "int64"?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-01-04 19:40:39 Re: pg_migrator issues
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-04 19:30:22 Re: pg_migrator issues