Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Present us the actual problems as you discover them, and we will find a
> solution. Right now we are just guessing.
>> There seems to be two problems that affect 64-bit POSIX systems too:
> Well, 64-bit POSIX works just fine, so unless you can present an actual
> failure in practice, I suggest you do not worry about this.
I think the main thing Ken is missing is that there are large swaths of
the system that don't deal in objects larger than 1Gb, and thus do not
have any need of 64-bit sizes. In the places where it actually matters,
we use long or size_t.
To get a working WIN64 port it'd be necessary to go around and replace
long with size_t/ssize_t in the places where it matters --- but there
are not 450 of them, I don't think. And I'd advise not touching the
places that use int; that will just bloat the patch and make it harder
to review, without actually buying any functionality.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
