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

Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

From: Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu>
To: Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk>
Cc: Kyle VanderBeek <kylev(at)yaga(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)
Date: 2001-04-17 13:30:57
Message-ID: 3ADC4591.3E92FCF7@alumni.caltech.edu (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
> Erm, int8 isn't long, but an array of 8 int's (unless it's changed).

int8 is a 64-bit integer. There used to be a type (maybe called int48
??) which was 8 4-byte integers. afaicr that is now called oidvector
(and there is an int2vector also). The name changes for these latter
types were fairly recent.

Kyle is asking about the 64-bit integer type called int8 in the catalog
and int64 in the backend source code.

                       - Thomas

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-04-17 14:14:14
Subject: Re: AW: timeout on lock feature
Previous:From: Peter T MountDate: 2001-04-17 13:27:33
Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-04-17 14:53:18
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)
Previous:From: Peter T MountDate: 2001-04-17 13:27:33
Subject: Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack)

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