| From: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | AW: AW: AW: Could turn on -O2 in AIX |
| Date: | 2000-11-16 10:13:24 |
| Message-ID: | 11C1E6749A55D411A9670001FA687963368119@sdexcsrv1.f000.d0188.sd.spardat.at |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > My solution would be to use INT_MIN for all ports, which has the advantage
> > that the above problematic comparison can be converted to !=,
> > since no integer will be smaller than INT_MIN.
>
> I agree. When I was looking at this code this morning, I was wondering
> what INT_MIN was supposed to represent anyway, if NOSTART_ABSTIME is
> INT_MIN + 1. I think someone messed this up between 4.2 and Postgres95.
Has there been any consensus yet ? If yes, could you apply my patch please ?
Or should I ask Bruce, for his "faster than his shadow" patch services ?
Thanks
Andreas
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Adam Lang | 2000-11-16 13:47:42 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: PHPBuilder article -- Postgres vs MySQL |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB | 2000-11-16 09:39:08 | AW: Coping with 'C' vs 'newC' function language namesh |