| From: | Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem |
| Date: | 2001-08-14 18:17:33 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.BSF.4.21.0108141108220.68737-100000@megazone23.bigpanda.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > And he who needs that kind of long term row identifiers would
> > be better off with 8-byte sequences anyway - IMNSVHO.
>
> What I need is a way to pad the struct declaration so that it leaves
> 8 bytes per int64 column, no matter what. I thought of
>
> This would work, I think, but my goodness it's an ugly solution.
> Has any hacker got a better one?
The only thing I could think of is using a struct to hide the
padding details instead of directly using int64, but then you'd have to
add a '.value' or something to the references. I'm not sure that's really
any cleaner.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lamar Owen | 2001-08-14 18:40:41 | Re: To be 7.1.3 or not to be 7.1.3? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-08-14 17:47:14 | Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem |