| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Macros for typtype (was Re: Arrays of Complex Types) |
| Date: | 2007-04-01 08:15:29 |
| Message-ID: | 200704011015.30442.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> What bothers me about that is I don't think the C spec mandates the
> representation width. If we could guarantee that enum typtype_type
> was 1 byte I'd be all for it.
The width is 4 both for the macro and the enum case. Both
#define TYPTYPE_BASE 'b'
and
enum ... {
TYPTYPE_BASE = 'b',
effectively generate int constants named TYPTYPE_BASE with decimal value
98. So there are no storage advantages either way.
--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-04-01 09:36:39 | Re: Macros for typtype (was Re: Arrays of Complex Types) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-04-01 07:50:07 | Re: Macros for typtype (was Re: Arrays of Complex Types) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-04-01 09:36:39 | Re: Macros for typtype (was Re: Arrays of Complex Types) |
| Previous Message | Greg Smith | 2007-04-01 07:57:35 | Re: bgwriter stats |