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: 8E9DCE32-747D-4CD5-89C3-7197343C00B4@myrealbox.com (view raw or flat)
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

Responses

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 © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group