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

Re: 64-bit API for large object

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>, Nozomi Anzai <anzai(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 64-bit API for large object
Date: 2012-10-01 13:02:12
Message-ID: 50699454.4050706@gmx.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On 9/28/12 10:35 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Now there is one more problem in this area which is that the patch
> defined a new type pg_int64 for frontend code (postgres_ext.h).  This
> seems a bad idea to me.  We already have int64 defined in c.h.  Should
> we expose int64 to postgres_ext.h somehow?  Should we use standard-
> mandated int64_t instead?  One way would be to have a new configure
> check for int64_t, and if that type doesn't exist, then just don't
> provide the 64 bit functionality to frontend.

Or create a new type like pg_lo_off_t.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Merlin MoncureDate: 2012-10-01 13:05:18
Subject: Re: CTE optimization fence on the todo list?
Previous:From: Peter GeogheganDate: 2012-10-01 11:33:07
Subject: Re: Hash id in pg_stat_statements

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