Tom Lane wrote:
> "Qingqing Zhou" <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu> writes:
> > AFAICS, int32 and int are exactly the same thing in PostgreSQL. For the
> > machine int is not 32 bits long, PostgreSQL won't even run.
> Ideally we should operate correctly if "int" is 64 bits. In practice
> I agree that making contrib work would be mighty far down the list of
> things to fix...
> It appears to me that the current de-facto standard for C on 64-bit
> machines is
> char 8 bits
> short 16 bits
> int 32 bits
> long 64 bits
> Promoting "int" to 64 bits has a big problem: you have to drop one of
> the widths entirely, because there is no other basic type allowed by
> C. (int16_t and the others are only typedefs not new basic types.)
> So I'm not really expecting to see int = 64 bits any time soon.
> As for the other direction (int = 16 bits), there's no real hope of
> running Postgres on a 16-bit machine anyway :-(
Agreed. CVS change made for clarity, int->int32.
Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
In response to
pgsql-bugs by date
|Next:||From: Eric Noriega||Date: 2006-04-12 23:49:33|
|Subject: BUG #2391: "Similar to" pattern matching does not operate as documented|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2006-04-12 20:28:41|
|Subject: Re: right sibling is not next child |