Re: We no longer have a fallback for machines without working int64

From: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: We no longer have a fallback for machines without working int64
Date: 2010-01-05 16:04:08
Message-ID: 20100105160407.GF3660@alvh.no-ip.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> As pointed out here
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2010-01/msg00145.php
> the current zic code doesn't cope gracefully with lack of working
> int64. Considering the trouble we've gone to throughout the rest
> of the system to support such compilers, it's a bit annoying to
> have this little detail break it. On the other hand, it's unclear
> that anybody still cares. (Other than people running SCO Openserver,
> for whom I have little sympathy anyway.)
>
> Thoughts? Is it worth expending any energy on?

Yeah, I'd say this much:

#ifdef INT64_IS_BUSTED
#error "unsupported platform"
#endif

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2010-01-05 16:06:20 Re: I: TODO: Allow substring/replace() to get/set bit values
Previous Message Tom Lane 2010-01-05 15:54:08 Re: FM format modifier does not remove leading zero from year