Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Japin Li <japinli(at)hotmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Cannot find a working 64-bit integer type on Illumos
Date: 2024-03-23 02:23:13
Message-ID: 1229869.1711160593@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> . o O ( int64_t, PRIdi64, etc were standardised a quarter of a century ago )

Yeah. Now that we require C99 it's probably reasonable to assume
that those things exist. I wouldn't be in favor of ripping out our
existing notations like UINT64CONST, because the code churn would be
substantial and the gain minimal. But we could imagine reimplementing
that stuff atop <stdint.h> and then getting rid of the configure-time
probes.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Thomas Munro 2024-03-23 02:27:16 Re: Potential stack overflow in incremental base backup
Previous Message Tom Lane 2024-03-23 02:17:26 Re: sublink [exists (select xxx group by grouping sets ())] causes an assertion error