Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem

From: Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>
To: Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone23(dot)bigpanda(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem
Date: 2001-08-14 19:53:18
Message-ID: 200108141953.f7EJrIg18005@jupiter.us.greatbridge.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephan Szabo wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > > And he who needs that kind of long term row identifiers would
> > > be better off with 8-byte sequences anyway - IMNSVHO.
> >
> > What I need is a way to pad the struct declaration so that it leaves
> > 8 bytes per int64 column, no matter what. I thought of
> >
> > This would work, I think, but my goodness it's an ugly solution.
> > Has any hacker got a better one?
>
> The only thing I could think of is using a struct to hide the
> padding details instead of directly using int64, but then you'd have to
> add a '.value' or something to the references. I'm not sure that's really
> any cleaner.

What I'm asking myself all the time is "which platforms do we
support that doesn't have 8-byte integers?". Could someone
enlighten me please?

And what does int8 do on these platforms?

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com #

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2001-08-14 19:54:42 Re: int8 sequences --- small implementation problem
Previous Message Lamar Owen 2001-08-14 18:40:41 Re: To be 7.1.3 or not to be 7.1.3?