| From: | Mark Mielke <mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Ken Camann <kjcamann(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: A Windows x64 port of PostgreSQL |
| Date: | 2008-07-03 17:18:19 |
| Message-ID: | 486D09DB.3060101@mark.mielke.cc |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> To get a working WIN64 port it'd be necessary to go around and replace
> long with size_t/ssize_t in the places where it matters --- but there
> are not 450 of them, I don't think. And I'd advise not touching the
> places that use int; that will just bloat the patch and make it harder
> to review, without actually buying any functionality
Plus - changing them all to 64-bit integers even for cases that will not
ever require > 32-bit integers, is likely to be slower in all cases
except for cases those that can be optimized to use only registers. I
would use "int" by choice for any size that will never extend beyond 1
Gb as it is likely to perform the best.
Cheers,
mark
--
Mark Mielke <mark(at)mielke(dot)cc>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Garick Hamlin | 2008-07-03 17:36:28 | Solaris ident authentication using unix domain sockets |
| Previous Message | Dean Rasheed | 2008-07-03 16:58:07 | Re: Auto-explain patch |