| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> |
| Cc: | lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org, Kyle VanderBeek <kylev(at)yaga(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack) |
| Date: | 2001-04-17 14:53:18 |
| Message-ID: | 23656.987519198@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> writes:
>> Ah, it just dawned on me what might be happening: Peter, I'm guessing
>> that you are thinking of "INT48" or some such, the pseudo-integer array
>> type. Kyle is referring to the "int8" 8 byte integer type.
> Ah, that would explain it. However int8 (as in 8 byte int) has not been
> implemented AFAIK (which is why I've said it's "new"). Until now, I've taken
> int8 to be the one that used to be used (probably still is) in system tables
> etc.
Say what? "int8" has been a 64-bit-integer type since release 6.4.
I think it existed in contrib even before that, but certainly that is
what "int8" has meant for the last three or so years.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-04-17 15:01:23 | Re: Re: No printable 7.1 docs? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-04-17 14:48:47 | Re: AW: timeout on lock feature |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyle VanderBeek | 2001-04-17 18:29:27 | Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack) |
| Previous Message | Thomas Lockhart | 2001-04-17 13:30:57 | Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack) |