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

Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits
Date: 2008-12-31 10:46:42
Message-ID: 495B4D92.3000406@hagander.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
>>> ...  Moreover, there does not actually seem to be a 
>>> way to find out whether you have a 32-bit or a 64-bit build (except by 
>>> using OS tools).
>> I think the basic definition of "32 bit" or "64 bit", certainly for
>> our purposes, is sizeof(void *).  That is something that configure
>> could easily find out.  Or you could look at sizeof(size_t) which
>> it already does find out.
>>
>> I have no immediate proposal on how to factor that into the version
>> string.
> 
> I think the pointer size is part of the compiler, rather than the
> platform, so it should go after the compiler mention, e.g.:
> 
>   test=> select version();
>                                     version
>   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   
>    PostgreSQL 8.4devel on i386-pc-bsdi4.3.1, compiled by GCC 2.95.3, 32-bit
>   (1 row)
> 
> The attached patch modifies configure.in and updates a documentation mention.

You forgot a certain another build system ;-)

Should be trivial to add there though, if we choose to do it this way,
so that's not an objection in general.

//Magnus

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2008-12-31 10:50:57
Subject: Re: parallel restore
Previous:From: Oleksiy ShchukinDate: 2008-12-31 10:14:58
Subject: BUG #4599: bugfix for contrib/dblink module

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