| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Tatsuo Ishii" <t-ishii(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp>, peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Open Items (was: RE: [HACKERS] Beta going well) |
| Date: | 2001-11-15 16:30:16 |
| Message-ID: | 12752.1005841816@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD" <ZeugswetterA(at)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> Well the absolute correct solution would involve all of:
> int8, int16, int32, int64 and separately uint8, uint16, uint32, uint64
I agree that that's probably overkill. I'm prepared to assume that
anything defining int8 defines int16 and int32 as well --- but int64
is just new enough that I don't want to make that extrapolation.
> The previous patch grouped:
> int8, int16 and int32
> uint8, uint16 and uint32
> int64 and uint64 <-- this grouping is wrong on AIX 4.3.3 and below
Okay, int64 and uint64 must be tested for separately then.
> If you prefer to make 4 groups out of this you could apply this patch.
This form of the patch looks reasonable to me.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-15 16:35:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Open Items (was: RE: [HACKERS] Beta going well) |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2001-11-15 16:29:50 | Re: [HACKERS] Open Items (was: RE: [HACKERS] Beta going well) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-11-15 16:35:44 | Re: [HACKERS] Open Items (was: RE: [HACKERS] Beta going well) |
| Previous Message | Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD | 2001-11-15 16:29:50 | Re: [HACKERS] Open Items (was: RE: [HACKERS] Beta going well) |