| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Jeremy Drake <pgsql(at)jdrake(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Mark Dilger <pgsql(at)markdilger(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: 64-bit API for large objects |
| Date: | 2005-09-24 16:13:11 |
| Message-ID: | 13145.1127578391@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 05:40:09PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> For that matter, we can't even guarantee that they work at all: not
>> all platforms even *have* int64 types.
> What platforms that PG supports don't have int64 arithmetic?
We claim to build with any ANSI C compiler, and there is no requirement
for a 64-bit type in ANSI C.
The historical project policy is that we should still build without
such a type, and everything should still work except that the effective
bounds of bigint data correspond to int32 instead of int64 limits.
I see no reason to back off that policy. It's not very much harder
to do it right.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2005-09-24 16:38:52 | Re: 64-bit API for large objects |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-09-24 15:56:06 | Re: 64-bit API for large objects |