Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: uintptr_t for Datum

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Subject: Re: uintptr_t for Datum
Date: 2009-12-31 17:22:45
Message-ID: 1341.1262280165@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> 2009/12/31 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>> Where's the logic to provide a definition of
>> intptr_t if the platform fails to?

> autoconf does that.

Oh, that's what I get for trying to review a patch before absorbing
any caffeine :-( ... I missed that you were relying on a built-in
autoconf macro.

> That also came out of Bruce's patch. Bruce, can you look at doing
> that? I don't have a machine easily accessible with the right autoconf
> version ATM :(

It's a really bad idea to be committing configure changes without having
personally run the patch through autoconf.

As penance for being too quick to complain, I'll review and commit this
myself.  If it works on my old HPUX box, it'll probably work everywhere ;-)

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Gurjeet SinghDate: 2009-12-31 17:23:37
Subject: Re: Re-enabling SET ROLE in security definer functions
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-12-31 17:10:02
Subject: Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group