Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Rejection of the smallest int8

From: sugita(at)sra(dot)co(dot)jp
To: tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us
Cc: pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Rejection of the smallest int8
Date: 2001-11-22 09:00:52
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackerspgsql-patches
From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Rejection of the smallest int8 
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 12:54:31 -0500

;;; I said:
;;; > If you can see a way around that, we're all ears ...
;;; Of course there's always the brute-force solution:
;;; 	if (strcmp(ptr, "-9223372036854775808") == 0)
;;; 	   return -9223372036854775808;
;;; 	else
;;; 	   <<proceed with int8in>>
;;; (modulo some #ifdef hacking to attach the correct L or LL suffix to the
;;; constant, but you get the idea)
;;; This qualifies as pretty durn ugly, but might indeed be more portable
;;; than any other alternative.  Comments?

I made a new patch. Toward zero fault is fixed.

Kind regards,

Kenji Sugita

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Turbo FredrikssonDate: 2001-11-22 09:31:04
Subject: Database mirroring
Previous:From: Hannu KrosingDate: 2001-11-22 08:59:50
Subject: Re: Further open item (Was: Status of 7.2)

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Colin 't HartDate: 2001-11-22 11:14:54
Subject: Re: Version checking when loading psql
Previous:From: Stephan SzaboDate: 2001-11-22 06:57:54
Subject: Re: More FK patches

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group