Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: INT64_MIN and _MAX
Date: 2015-03-22 22:25:45
Message-ID: CAM3SWZTBr6uzguNN7+=8ouhnv6R20Rsnt2-K=G4N-KCLX_jW1A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:26 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> I have been annoyed by this multiple times. I think we should make sure the C99 defines are there (providing values if they aren't) and always use those. We've used them in parts of the tree long enough that it's unlikely to cause problems. Nothing is helped by using different things in other parts of the tree.

+1

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2015-03-22 22:26:54 barnacle (running CLOBBER_CACHE_RECURSIVELY) seems stuck since November
Previous Message Greg Stark 2015-03-22 21:50:16 Re: Remove fsync ON/OFF as a visible option?