On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 01:01, Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> wrote: > 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;
You're missing the crucial point: That is that PostgreSQL uses long on *32-bit*. Python uses __int64 on *64-bit*. PostgreSQL didn't *have* a definition on 64-bit, so we fell back on the 32-bit one. -- Magnus Hagander Me: 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
