Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Hannu Krosing <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution
Date: 2000-11-05 18:07:12
Message-ID: 812.973447632@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Larry Rosenman <ler(at)lerctr(dot)org> writes:
>> Uh, we don't want to depend on gcc, do we?

> Doesn't C99 *REQUIRE* long long?

What difference does that make? It'll be a very long time before
Postgres can REQUIRE that people have a C99-compliant compiler.
Portability does not mean "we work great on just the newest and
spiffiest platforms"...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adriaan Joubert 2000-11-05 18:52:25 Re: Re: BIT/BIT VARYING status
Previous Message Tom Lane 2000-11-05 18:02:37 Re: Transaction ID wraparound: problem and proposed solution