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

Re: contrib/intarray/_int_gist.c

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Qingqing Zhou <zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: contrib/intarray/_int_gist.c
Date: 2006-04-12 21:46:39
Message-ID: 200604122146.k3CLkd705761@candle.pha.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs
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
  EnterpriseDB    http://www.enterprisedb.com

  + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +

In response to

pgsql-bugs by date

Next:From: Eric NoriegaDate: 2006-04-12 23:49:33
Subject: BUG #2391: "Similar to" pattern matching does not operate as documented
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2006-04-12 20:28:41
Subject: Re: right sibling is not next child

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