Re: Remove pg_strtouint64(), use strtoull() directly

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Remove pg_strtouint64(), use strtoull() directly
Date: 2021-12-13 09:44:50
Message-ID: d104ce6d-cb3e-6b80-9fab-0b7cb27f9d62@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 10.12.21 16:25, Tom Lane wrote:
> Our experience with the variable size of "long" has left a sufficiently
> bad taste in my mouth that I'm not enthused about adding hard-wired
> assumptions that "long long" is identical to int64. So this seems like
> it's going in the wrong direction, and giving up portability that we
> might want back someday.

What kind of scenario do you have in mind? Someone making their long
long int 128 bits?

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Smith 2021-12-13 09:48:47 Re: row filtering for logical replication
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2021-12-13 09:19:08 Re: Failed transaction statistics to measure the logical replication progress