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

Re: Rejection of the smallest int8

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: sugita(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Rejection of the smallest int8
Date: 2001-11-21 22:15:04
Message-ID: 25751.1006380904@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Use strtoll/strtoull if available.  They should be on "most" systems
> anyway.

Mph.  The reason int8in is coded the way it is is to avoid having to
deal with strtoll configuration (does it exist?  Is it the right thing?
Don't forget Alphas, where int8 == long).  We'd still need a fallback
if it doesn't exist, so I'm not that excited about this answer.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-11-21 22:22:28
Subject: Re: beta3
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-11-21 22:14:35
Subject: Re: beta3

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-11-22 02:28:44
Subject: Re: More FK patches
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-11-21 22:13:58
Subject: Re: Rejection of the smallest int8

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