Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> Does ecpg have a different requirement from everything else, or are we just
> doing it differently in different places for no special reason?
I believe that in ecpg, the requirement is "support the data types
defined by the C compiler", that is we should support long long with
whatever width it actually has on the platform. Just about everyplace
else in PG, we want an integer of a known number of bits, and whether
that's long or long long is incidental. So it's not surprising to me
that this case got overlooked in the win64 patches.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
