Tom Lane wrote: > Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 00:20, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Seems kind of buggy. ?They shouldn't be defining it at all. > > > Why not? Should they just stop using it? In that case, so should we, no? > > What's buggy is M$ failing to provide it in their <sys/types.h> header. > It's unlikely they'll pay any attention to our opinions, however. > > I think the Python guys are up against the same problem as us, namely > substituting for the platform's failure to define the type.
I am unclear if accepting what Python chose as a default is the right route vs. doing more research. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
