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

Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for port testing on fmgr changes -- Results!

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql(at)rkirkpat(dot)net, pgsql-ports(at)postgreSQL(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for port testing on fmgr changes -- Results!
Date: 2000-06-25 04:36:13
Message-ID: 39558C3D.531CE848@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-ports
> Hmm, that makes all kinds of sense if time_t is not the same size as
> AbsoluteTime --- which wouldn't surprise me at all on a 64-bit system.
> time_t *ought* to be 64-bits on such a machine.  The casts in that
> routine,
>                 tx = localtime((time_t *) &time);
> are obviously bogus if so.  Can anyone with an Alpha comment?

I haven't had an Alpha for a couple of years, but I *strongly* recall
that time_t is 64 bits on that machine.

               - Thomas

In response to

Responses

pgsql-ports by date

Next:From: Adriaan JoubertDate: 2000-06-25 07:17:52
Subject: Re: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for port testing on fmgr changes -- Results!
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2000-06-25 04:15:44
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Call for port testing on fmgr changes -- Results!

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-06-25 04:55:08
Subject: Re: SQL_TEXT (Re: Re: Big 7.1 open items)
Previous:From: Thomas LockhartDate: 2000-06-25 04:31:45
Subject: Re: About the pid and opts files

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