On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 16:10, Peter Eisentraut<pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > 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.
+1. I think it's good that it was posted for a quick review of the general idea, but I agree that it's too early to commit it until we can see some actual benefit. And I expect the Datum changes to be much larger than this, so we can just review/apply them as one when the time comes. -- Magnus Hagander Self: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers