From: | Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)alumni(dot)caltech(dot)edu> |
---|---|
To: | Peter T Mount <peter(at)retep(dot)org(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Kyle VanderBeek <kylev(at)yaga(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack) |
Date: | 2001-04-17 13:30:57 |
Message-ID: | 3ADC4591.3E92FCF7@alumni.caltech.edu |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
> Erm, int8 isn't long, but an array of 8 int's (unless it's changed).
int8 is a 64-bit integer. There used to be a type (maybe called int48
??) which was 8 4-byte integers. afaicr that is now called oidvector
(and there is an int2vector also). The name changes for these latter
types were fairly recent.
Kyle is asking about the 64-bit integer type called int8 in the catalog
and int64 in the backend source code.
- Thomas
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-04-17 14:14:14 | Re: AW: timeout on lock feature |
Previous Message | Peter T Mount | 2001-04-17 13:27:33 | Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack) |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-04-17 14:53:18 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack) |
Previous Message | Peter T Mount | 2001-04-17 13:27:33 | Re: Large Object problems (was Re: JDBC int8 hack) |