Re: Fix pgstatindex using for large indexes

From: "Florian G(dot) Pflug" <fgp(at)phlo(dot)org>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Tatsuhito Kasahara <kasahara(dot)tatsuhito(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Fix pgstatindex using for large indexes
Date: 2008-02-25 23:20:12
Message-ID: 47C34D2C.6090605@phlo.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM> writes:
>> Tom Lane napsal(a):
>>> Most places where we've dealt with this before, we use double, which is
>>> guaranteed to be available whereas uint64 is not ...
>
>> Is this requirement still valid?
>
> Yes.
Maybe we should just bite the bullet, and implement int64 emulation
for platforms that don't provide one? I was thinking that something
like "typedef struct { int32 low, int32 high } int64", plus a few
Macros for basic arithmetic should do the trick.

Not particularly rewarding work, given that all major platforms *do*
support int64 - but it'd prevent the discussion that starts everytime
someone proposes a patch that depends on int64.

regards, Florian Pflug

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-02-26 00:51:22 Re: Fix pgstatindex using for large indexes
Previous Message Euler Taveira de Oliveira 2008-02-25 23:09:12 Re: lc_time and localized dates