Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> writes:
> Excerpts from Andrew Dunstan's message of sáb abr 16 21:46:44 -0300 2011:
>> The other, slightly more serious case, is at
>> src/test/regress/pg_regress.c:2280, which is this code:
>>
>> printf(_("running on port %d with pid %lu\n"),
>> port, (unsigned long) postmaster_pid);
>>
>> Here the postmaster_pid is in fact a HANDLE which is 8 bytes, and so it
>> should probably be cast to an unsigned long long and rendered with the
>> format %llu in Win64.
> Is this "uint64" and UINT64_FORMAT?
Considering that this is a purely informational printout, I don't see
any reason to give a damn about the possibility of high-order bits in
the HANDLE being dropped. And it's not an especially good idea to stick
UINT64_FORMAT into a translatable string, because of the platform
dependency that creates.
I think all we need here is a way to shut up the overly-anal-retentive
warning. I would have expected that explicit cast to be enough,
actually, but apparently it's not. Ideas?
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
