Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> What exactly do you think we might do differently? There is only one
> sane definition for ssize_t on a 64-bit platform.
Well, I saw two definitions listed in this thread, and it wasn't clear
to me the Python one was known to be the correct one:
PostgreSQL has it as
typedef long ssize_t;
And python has it as:
typedef __int64 ssize_t;
--
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
