Re: uintptr_t for Datum

2009/12/31 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>> 2009/12/31 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>>>  Where's the logic to provide a definition of
>>> intptr_t if the platform fails to?
>
>> autoconf does that.
>
> Oh, that's what I get for trying to review a patch before absorbing
> any caffeine :-( ... I missed that you were relying on a built-in
> autoconf macro.

:-)

>> That also came out of Bruce's patch. Bruce, can you look at doing
>> that? I don't have a machine easily accessible with the right autoconf
>> version ATM :(
>
> It's a really bad idea to be committing configure changes without having
> personally run the patch through autoconf.

Right, this is why I had Bruce do that part, and send it to me
separately. I figured one committer is as good as another.

> As penance for being too quick to complain, I'll review and commit this
> myself.  If it works on my old HPUX box, it'll probably work everywhere ;-)

Ok, deal :-) That's probably the one other platform beside Bruce's
that gets reasonably-regular-testing and still doesn't have intptr_t.

I'll be off to my newyears party now, enjoy the patch! Happy new year
to you and other PostgreSQL hackers!

--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/