From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Isn't HANDLE 64 bits on Win64? |
Date: | 2010-11-16 10:01:34 |
Message-ID: | AANLkTi=KHxn_Ty7vqVMtCjtvG39N8y=+=js84wnqOogw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:35, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> ... and if so, isn't postmaster.c's code to transfer a HANDLE value to a
> child process all wet?
It is definitely 64-bit. sizeof(HANDLE)==8.
So yes, it looks completely broken. I guess Windows doesn't actually
*assign* you a handle larger than 2^32 until you actually ahve that
many open handles. Typical values on my test system (win64) comes out
at around 4000 in all tests.
> BTW, it seems like it'd be a good thing if we had a Win64 machine in the
> buildfarm.
Yes. I actually thought we had one. Dave, weren't you going to set one up?
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dave Page | 2010-11-16 10:25:02 | Re: Isn't HANDLE 64 bits on Win64? |
Previous Message | Shigeru HANADA | 2010-11-16 09:36:02 | Re: SQL/MED estimated time of arrival? |