Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution

* Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> [001105 09:39]:
> Hannu Krosing writes:
>
> > > The first thought that comes to mind is that XIDs should be promoted to
> > > eight bytes. However there are several practical problems with this:
> > > * portability --- I don't believe long long int exists on all the
> > > platforms we support.
> >
> > I suspect that gcc at least supports long long on all OS-s we support
>
> Uh, we don't want to depend on gcc, do we?
Doesn't C99 *REQUIRE* long long? I know the SCO UDK Compiler has had
it for a long time. I know it's early in C99's life, but...

>
> But we could make the XID a struct of two 4-byte integers, at the obvious
> increase in storage size.
What is the difference between a native long long and a struct of 2
long's?

--
Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler
Phone: +1 972-414-9812 (voice) Internet: ler(at)lerctr(dot)org
US Mail: 1905 Steamboat Springs Drive, Garland, TX 75044-6749