On Tuesday 04 August 2009 14:03:34 Tsutomu Yamada wrote: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Peter Eisentraut<pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > > > On Friday 26 June 2009 12:07:24 Tsutomu Yamada wrote: > > >> Included is a conceptual patch to use intptr_t. Comments are welcome. > > > > > > After closer inspection, not having a win64 box available, I have my > > > doubts whether this patch actually does anything. Foremost, it doesn't > > > touch the definition of the Datum type, which ought to be at the core > > > of a change like this. > > > > > > Now I see that you call this a "conceptual patch". Perhaps we should > > > wait until you have developed it into a complete patch? > > > > Is there any reason to consider this patch any further during this > > CommitFest? It seems that this is a long way from being ready to go. > > I'm sorry for delaying response. > > This patch is needed as a base of the fix for Windows x64 in the future. > > There are still a lot of corrections necessary for Win x64. > (typedef Datum, shared buffer, "%lu" messages, headers, build scripts, ...) > We are trying these now, and want to offer the result to the next Commit > Fest. > > Because we are glad if this pointer patch is confirmed at the early stage, > we submitted patch to this Commit Fest.
Well, there is nothing outright wrong with this patch, but without any measurable effect, it is too early to commit it. At least I would like to see the Datum typedef to be changed to use intptr_t and the fallout from that cleaned up. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
