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>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)Sun(dot)COM>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: version() output vs. 32/64 bits
Date: 2009-01-06 18:38:42
Message-ID: 4963A532.6080306@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>>> So what do we want to do for 8.4? Add 32/64-bit version() indicator and
>>> add OUT parameters to the TODO list?
>> +1. There seems a good case for making the 32/64bit distinction
>> visible somewhere, and the text version string is as good as anyplace.
>
> OK, done with the attached patch, and autoconf run. Magnus, would you
> add this change to the MSVC build? Thanks.
>
> test=> select version();
> version
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> PostgreSQL 8.4devel on i386-pc-bsdi4.3.1, compiled by GCC 2.95.3, 32-bit
> (1 row)
>
>

Done.

postgres=# select version();
version
----------------------------------------------------------------
PostgreSQL 8.4devel, compiled by Visual C++ build 1400, 32-bit
(1 row)

//Magnus

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2009-01-06 18:40:28 Is it really such a great idea for spi.h to include the world?
Previous Message Tom Lane 2009-01-06 18:31:10 Re: dblink vs SQL/MED - security and implementation details