| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Centralize use of PG_INTXX_MIN/MAX for integer limits |
| Date: | 2018-11-25 15:26:29 |
| Message-ID: | e7595006-570e-49c8-57de-22b54c15ba71@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 24/11/2018 13:15, Michael Paquier wrote:
> A couple of years ago, 62e2a8dc has introduced in c.h a set of limits
> (to fix some portability issues from 83ff1618) to make the code more
> system-independent. Those are for example PG_INT32_MIN, etc. The core
> code now mixes the internal PG_ limits with the system ones. Would we
> want to unify a bit the whole thing and replace all the SHRT_MIN/MAX,
> LONG_MIN/MAX and such with the internal limit definitions?
Since we now require C99, we could also just use the system-provided
definitions in <stdint.h>.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jung, Jinho | 2018-11-25 15:45:12 | Re: Regarding performance regression on specific query |
| Previous Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2018-11-25 14:49:42 | Re: Add extension options to control TAP and isolation tests |