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
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 |