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

Re: uintptr_t for Datum

From: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: uintptr_t for Datum
Date: 2009-12-31 18:44:32
Message-ID: 200912311844.nBVIiWn18036@momjian.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> BTW, it looks like the patch is showing a manual change to
> >> pg_config.h.in.  Don't do that.  Run autoheader.
> 
> > I wasn't aware autoheader existed.  Is that new or has it alwasy been
> > part of autoconf?
> 
> It's always been there, or at least for many years.  pg_config.h.in
> really ought to be thought of the same as configure: you don't edit
> it, you just generate it.

Well, that's pretty confusing considering it has a .in suffix, just like
configure.in, which we do edit, but I get your point.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian  <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>        http://momjian.us
  EnterpriseDB                             http://enterprisedb.com

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

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Dimitri FontaineDate: 2009-12-31 18:56:05
Subject: Re: Thoughts on statistics for continuously advancing columns
Previous:From: Kevin GrittnerDate: 2009-12-31 18:43:05
Subject: Re: Serializable Isolation without blocking

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