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

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, Kyle VanderBeek <kylev(at)yaga(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)
Date: 2001-04-17 14:53:18
Message-ID: 23656.987519198@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
>> Ah, it just dawned on me what might be happening: Peter, I'm guessing
>> that you are thinking of "INT48" or some such, the pseudo-integer array
>> type. Kyle is referring to the "int8" 8 byte integer type.

> Ah, that would explain it. However int8 (as in 8 byte int) has not been 
> implemented AFAIK (which is why I've said it's "new"). Until now, I've taken 
> int8 to be the one that used to be used (probably still is) in system tables 
> etc.

Say what?  "int8" has been a 64-bit-integer type since release 6.4.
I think it existed in contrib even before that, but certainly that is
what "int8" has meant for the last three or so years.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-04-17 15:01:23
Subject: Re: Re: No printable 7.1 docs?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-04-17 14:48:47
Subject: Re: AW: timeout on lock feature

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Kyle VanderBeekDate: 2001-04-17 18:29:27
Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2001-04-17 13:30:57
Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

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