"Joe Conway" <joseph(dot)conway(at)home(dot)com> writes:
>> What I need is a way to pad the struct declaration so that it leaves
>> 8 bytes per int64 column, no matter what. I thought of
> What if you defined int64 as a union made up of one "long int" member and
> one 8 byte char member, and then always refer to the "long int"?
Well, that'd remove the notational ugliness from the struct definition,
at the cost of adding it to the code that uses the struct. I think I'd
prefer to uglify the struct and keep the code simple. But it's a good
thought.
regards, tom lane