Re: Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?
Date: 2017-02-26 18:04:20
Message-ID: CAH2-Wzm5_EOAJrPGkZYc3w-ASCca59Nsfz4SOnxBaV=LpD-=rA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 9:48 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> [ shrug... ] If you're excited enough about it to do the work, I won't
> stand in your way. But I don't find it to be a stop-ship issue.

I'll add it to my todo list for Postgres 10.

I think it's worth being consistent about a restriction like this, as
Robert said. Given that fixing this issue will not affect the machine
code generated by compilers for the majority of platforms we support,
doing so seems entirely worthwhile to me.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2017-02-26 18:09:31 Re: I propose killing PL/Tcl's "modules" infrastructure
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-02-26 17:48:43 Re: Should logtape.c blocks be of type long?