From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tsutomu Yamada <tsutomu(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: More portable way to support 64bit platforms |
Date: | 2009-08-04 14:16:38 |
Message-ID: | 9837222c0908040716u48294fcelb056cf7277717ffb@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 16:10, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 04 August 2009 14:03:34 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut<peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>> > > On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote:
>> > >> Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome.
>> > >
>> > > After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my
>> > > doubts whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't
>> > > touch the definition of the Datum type, which ought to be at the core
>> > > of a change like this.
>> > >
>> > > Now I see that you call this a "conceptual patch". Perhaps we should
>> > > wait until you have developed it into a complete patch?
>> >
>> > Is there any reason to consider this patch any further during this
>> > CommitFest? It seems that this is a long way from being ready to go.
>>
>> I'm sorry for delaying response.
>>
>> This patch is needed as a base of the fix for Windows x64 in the future.
>>
>> There are still a lot of corrections necessary for Win x64.
>> (typedef Datum, shared buffer, "%lu" messages, headers, build scripts, ...)
>> We are trying these now, and want to offer the result to the next Commit
>> Fest.
>>
>> Because we are glad if this pointer patch is confirmed at the early stage,
>> we submitted patch to this Commit Fest.
>
> Well, there is nothing outright wrong with this patch, but without any
> measurable effect, it is too early to commit it. At least I would like to see
> the Datum typedef to be changed to use intptr_t and the fallout from that
> cleaned up.
+1.
I think it's good that it was posted for a quick review of the general
idea, but I agree that it's too early to commit it until we can see
some actual benefit. And I expect the Datum changes to be much larger
than this, so we can just review/apply them as one when the time
comes.
--
Magnus Hagander
Self: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-08-04 14:16:45 | Re: doing %-expansion in plpgsql RAISE USING |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-08-04 14:14:46 | Re: bytea vs. pg_dump |