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

Re: Interval->day proposal

From: Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Interval->day proposal
Date: 2005-06-01 04:20:25
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On May 31, 2005, at 12:48 AM, Tom Lane wrote:

> Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)myrealbox(dot)com> writes:
>>  tm_mday is an int value, which is only guaranteed to be 2
>> bytes (though it may be larger), if I understand correctly.
> Actually, practically all of the Postgres code assumes int is at least
> 32 bits.  Feel free to change pg_tm's field to be declared int32  
> instead
> of just int if that bothers you, but it is really quite academic.

Thanks for the clarification. My instinct would be to change so that  
it's no longer just an assumption. Is there any benefit to changing  
the other pg_tm int fields to int32? I imagine int is used quite a  
bit throughout the code, and I'd think assuming 32-bit ints would  
have bitten people in the past if it were invalid, so perhaps  
changing them is unnecessary.

> I'd make the on-disk field an int32, taking the struct to 16 bytes.

Will do.

Thanks for you comments.

Michael Glaesemann
grzm myrealbox com

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2005-06-01 04:40:07
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2005-06-01 02:47:30
Subject: Re: NOLOGGING option, or ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group