From: | Dan Ports <drkp(at)csail(dot)mit(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com, markus(at)bluegap(dot)ch, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: SSI patch version 14 |
Date: | 2011-02-08 15:40:01 |
Message-ID: | 20110208154001.GW9421@csail.mit.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 08, 2011 at 11:25:34AM +0200, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 08.02.2011 10:43, Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > I see that at least three BuildFarm critters don't have UINT64_MAX
> > defined.
>
> I guess we'll have to just #define it ourselves. Or could we just pick
> another magic value, do we actually rely on InvalidSerCommitSeqno being
> higher than all other values anywhere?
As far as I know we don't specifically rely on that anywhere, and
indeed I did have it #defined to 1 at one point (with the other
constants adjusted to match) and I don't recall any problems. But given
that we most often use InvalidSerCommitSeqNo to mean "not committed
yet", it made more sense to set it to UINT64_MAX so that if a
comparison did sneak in it would do the right thing.
I did dust off a copy of the ANSI standard at the time, and it was
pretty explicit that UINT64_MAX is supposed to be defined in <stdint.h>.
But that may just be a C99 requirement (I didn't have an older copy of
the standard), and it's obviously no guarantee that it actually is
defined.
Dan
--
Dan R. K. Ports MIT CSAIL http://drkp.net/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Chris Browne | 2011-02-08 15:40:25 | Re: postponing some large patches to 9.2 |
Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-02-08 15:34:12 | Re: Reduce the amount of data loss on the standby |