From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> |
Cc: | pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: contrib/intarray/_int_gist.c |
Date: | 2006-04-05 15:19:12 |
Message-ID: | 641.1144250352@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
"Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
> AFAICS, int32 and int are exactly the same thing in PostgreSQL. For the
> machine int is not 32 bits long, PostgreSQL won't even run.
Ideally we should operate correctly if "int" is 64 bits. In practice
I agree that making contrib work would be mighty far down the list of
things to fix...
It appears to me that the current de-facto standard for C on 64-bit
machines is
char 8 bits
short 16 bits
int 32 bits
long 64 bits
Promoting "int" to 64 bits has a big problem: you have to drop one of
the widths entirely, because there is no other basic type allowed by
C. (int16_t and the others are only typedefs not new basic types.)
So I'm not really expecting to see int = 64 bits any time soon.
As for the other direction (int = 16 bits), there's no real hope of
running Postgres on a 16-bit machine anyway :-(
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bjoern A. Zeeb | 2006-04-05 15:28:10 | Re: PGSTAT: bind(2): Can't assign requested address |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-04-05 14:59:53 | Re: PGSTAT: bind(2): Can't assign requested address |