|From:||Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>|
|To:||Adam Brightwell <adam(dot)brightwell(at)crunchydatasolutions(dot)com>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Additional role attributes && superuser review|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
On 11/18/2014 04:58 PM, Adam Brightwell wrote:
> Currently, I am using int32 simply because int64 is causing some
> issues. The issue is that genbki.pl <http://genbki.pl> is not
> able to associate it with the int8 type as defined in pg_type.h.
> Therefore Schema_pg_authid in schemapg.h isn't defined correctly.
> I've been digging and scratching my head on this one but I have
> reached a point where I think it would be better just to ask.
> Attached is a quite trivial patch that addresses the int64 (C) to int8
> (SQL) mapping issue.
> Further digging revealed that Catalog.pm wasn't accounting for int64
> (thanks Stephen). Would it be better to include this change as a
> separate patch (as attached) or would it be preferable to include with
> a larger role attribute bitmask patch?
I think we should just apply this now. As Tom said the reason for not
doing it is long gone.
|Next Message||Alvaro Herrera||2014-11-18 22:34:02||Re: New Event Trigger: table_rewrite|
|Previous Message||David G Johnston||2014-11-18 22:21:23||Re: Use of recent Russian TZ changes in regression tests|