Re: 64-bit API for large object

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp>
Cc: Nozomi Anzai <anzai(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 64-bit API for large object
Date: 2012-09-28 14:35:55
Message-ID: 1348842697-sup-7035@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Excerpts from Kohei KaiGai's message of jue sep 27 01:01:18 -0300 2012:

> * I have a question. What is the meaning of INT64_IS_BUSTED?
> It seems to me a marker to indicate a platform without 64bit support.
> However, the commit 901be0fad4034c9cf8a3588fd6cf2ece82e4b8ce
> says as follows:
> | Remove all the special-case code for INT64_IS_BUSTED, per decision that
> | we're not going to support that anymore.

Yeah, I think we should just get rid of those bits. I don't remember
seeing *any* complaint when INT64_IS_BUSTED was removed, which means
nobody was using that code anyway.

Now there is one more problem in this area which is that the patch
defined a new type pg_int64 for frontend code (postgres_ext.h). This
seems a bad idea to me. We already have int64 defined in c.h. Should
we expose int64 to postgres_ext.h somehow? Should we use standard-
mandated int64_t instead? One way would be to have a new configure
check for int64_t, and if that type doesn't exist, then just don't
provide the 64 bit functionality to frontend.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Karl O. Pinc 2012-09-28 16:10:32 Doc patch, put pg_temp into the documentation's index
Previous Message Tom Lane 2012-09-28 14:10:34 Re: setting per-database/role parameters checks them against wrong context