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

Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

From: Kyle VanderBeek <kylev(at)yaga(dot)com>
To: Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)
Date: 2001-04-17 18:29:27
Message-ID: 20010417112927.V30314@yaga.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
On Tue, Apr 17, 2001 at 09:11:54AM -0400, Peter T Mount wrote:
> Erm, int8 isn't long, but an array of 8 int's (unless it's changed).

http://postgresql.readysetnet.com/users-lounge/docs/7.0/user/datatype.htm#AEN942

It is very much an 8-byte integer, the correlary to Java's Long/long.

-- 
Kyle.
   "I hate every ape I see, from chimpan-A to chimpan-Z" -- Troy McClure

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Jarmo PaavilainenDate: 2001-04-17 19:08:06
Subject: SV: Foreign key checks/referential integrity.
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-04-17 18:15:38
Subject: Re: Real/effective user

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: D. HagemanDate: 2001-04-17 22:39:13
Subject: Fix for psql core dumping on bad user
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-04-17 14:53:18
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

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